- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:57:01 -0800
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- 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>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 16:57:35 UTC