W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:58:03 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <93D8E6FB-E610-4898-9C78-5946C6E3D11E@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

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

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC