- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:58:03 -0800
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:58:36 UTC