Re: Closing issues. Setting and meeting deadlines. (was Re: Issue-9 (video-accessibility): Chairs Solicit Proposals)

On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Maciej wrote:
>> Speaking for myself and not necessarily my co-chairs (because I  
>> haven't
>> asked their opinion): What I would prefer to see is that we resolve  
>> the
>> issue based on some initial proposals, and then submit any  
>> proposals for
>> further improvement via the bug process. If the bug process turns  
>> out to be
>> insufficient for any further proposed improvements, then those  
>> specific
>> improvements can be escalated to their own tracker issues.
>> I do not think it is wise to continue recycling the same tracker  
>> issue for
>> multiple rounds of changes. Handling things that way would lead to  
>> an issue
>> that just stays open indefinitely.
> From my reading of the HTML Working Group Decision Policy [1]:
> * Open Tracker Issues are issues with someone working on a change  
> proposal [2].
> * If the change proposal is not done by the deadline, the issue will
> be closed without prejudice and DEFERRED to the NEXT VERSION of HTML.
> * An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be
> re-raised with approval of the HTML Chairs. It is an ENDPOINT for the
> escalation process.
> Is this correct?

I think those points are correct, but I do not see the relevance to my  
remarks which you quoted.

I expect some change proposals to be submitted for ISSUE-9, and  
therefore I do not expect it to be closed without prejudice.


Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 16:57:35 UTC