Re: Bug 7034

On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> And I will note that both the ombnibus bug report[1] and a very  
> specific bug report[2] have been downgraded to P3.  Given that  
> whatever we come up with has the distinct possibility of affecting a  
> large number of open issues, I think that's rather unfortunate.  I  
> don't think it is fair to put this entirely on the editor's lap, and  
> think that opening this up for change proposals would be a  
> reasonable next step.

I imagine the editor doesn't want to pre-empt the very active mailing  
discussion of this bug. That being said, if you are really concerned  
about helping the editor, then it would be a lot more productive to  
point out the specific authoring conformance criteria you disagree  
with and pursue those changes individually, something you initially  
offered to do but which you have since then refused to do.

At this point, I don't think you can honestly say that *no* rationale  
has been given for authoring conformance requirements. A number of  
people have given rationale, either generally, or for some specific  
requirements. It's clear that you don't agree with it in some cases.  
And that's fine. But it seems disingenuous to me to claim that you  
can't even state what you disagree with because no rationale has been  

> That being said, I don't want anybody to claim that such proposals  
> were out of order: so I would like to request that these bugs either  
> be changed to a high priority, or that we agree to solicit change  
> proposals (and agree to keep these specific bugs in abeyance while  
> that is done).

Nothing is stopping you from making a detailed proposal in the form of  
one or more bugs. In fact, I would recommend doing so.

I also think opening a pretextual bug that's not meant to be fixable,  
solely to seek changes via the Change Proposal process instead, is not  
a great way to do things.


Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 21:07:46 UTC