W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Re: removing "TrackerRequest" on other people's issues

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:04:37 -0800
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <DAC3B4C4-4D4C-4E86-B47B-3591177260A4@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi Julian,

Thanks for bringing this up. In the case of all of these bugs, it seems like the following situation occurred:

(1) Editor resolved a bug.
(2) Someone both marked a bug REOPENED *and* added TrackerRequest keyword.
(3) Someone else noticed this and removed TrackerRequest.

Steps (2) and (3) in this process are both wrong.

Per the Decision Policy, you get the choice of reopening a bug for new consideration by the editor, *or* you can add TrackerRequest to escalate it to the WG. You're not supposed to do both at once, because that puts the bug in an inconsistent state where it's not clear what the next action is. This seems to be a common point of confusion.

When the Chairs notice bugs in this inconsistent state, we generally either re-RESOLVE the bug if the intent to escalate is very clear, or ask the person who both reopened and added the keyword

So, two requests for WG members and others using bugzilla:

- Please, when you disagree with a bug's resolution, do only one of reopening it *or* marking it TrackerRequest, depending on whether you want the editor to take another look, or you want to send it to the full WG as an issue. Please don't do both.

- If you notice someone has made the mistake of both reopening and adding TrackerRequest, and you'd like to fix the bug, please make sure to match the actual intent of the person who did it. In particular, just stripping TrackerRequest risks losing information. If you're unsure about what to do, please contact one of the Chairs and we'll make sure to fix it.


On Jan 23, 2011, at 3:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> due to what happened yesterday with <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9657>, I just checked for issues where TrackerRequest was removed, and TrackerIssue was *not* added.
> In many cases this was done by the chairs or the people who raised the bug, but in at least two cases it was not:
> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10559> ("blur() is handy, and should not be ignored")
> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10904> ("<video> element needs to support some form of parental control solution")
> Those who raised these bugs (bcc'd) should check whether they want to re-add the keyword.
> Also, I'd like to ask to not mess around with the status of bugs raised by somebody else unless it's clearly what the original bug reporter wanted. Dropping the "TrackerRequest" keyword from something that even has a proposed text for the tracker issue attached clearly is not ok.
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 21:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:30 UTC