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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:57:01 -0800
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-id: <46796718-B48B-4413-A640-0336F13948DD@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC