Re: Inadequate rationales (Was: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals)

On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Shelley has observed a number of cases where the rationales that were
>>> supposed to be provided were not adequate (and, no, I don't believe that
>>> any response that amounts to "go dig in the email archives" is an
>>> adequate response).
>> This happens occasionally (especially on editorial issues) when I'm doing
>> a lot of bugs at once. Everyone should please feel free to reopen bugs for
>> which they feel my rationale was inadequate.
>> --
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> You rather scathingly told me not to do this when I did, and told me
> there was a procedure in place, and to raise an issue and NOT to
> reopen the bug.

Can you cite an example? I looked through all the bugs filed by you and I couldn't find the one you are referring to. Under the Decision Policy, it's definitely the reporter's prerogative whether to reopen or escalate to the tracker (within reason -- chain-reopening is not a good pattern). No one should be told otherwise.


Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:58:36 UTC