- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:03:27 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 09/13/2010 03:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On 09/13/2010 03:07 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:24:39 +0200, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Henri Sivonen<hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be possible for the accessibility task force to track bugs >>>>>> using the status whiteboard instead of using a keyword. >>>>> >>>>> Or, better yet, continue to use keywords but make the email path not >>>>> spam public-html for keyword changes. Or for any bug modifications >>>>> after the bug creation for that matter. >>>> >>>> I always liked the fact that the group got email when the NE keyword >>>> was added. >> >> +1 >> >> I want every member of this list to be aware of -- at a minimum -- the >> subject of every non-editorial bug. Ultimately, I expect the change control >> as we move to LC and beyond to be that at some point the only changes made >> to the document are in response to bugs reported. > > Note that the NE keyword hasn't been 100% successful in this task. I > believe a lot of the filed bugs are currently lacking it. While anything involving humans is bound to have bugs, Mike has been dilligent so that I don't think that there is any systematic problems here. > Though I > can't really blame people because sometimes it's hard to tell if an > issue just needs to be clarified, or if behavior needs to be changed. > I think it would be much more effective to have the initial bugmail to > to the list whenever a bug is filed. I've seen a lot of asdflkasd;jads bugs as a result of the bug form. If people are complaining now... - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 20:04:08 UTC