- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:12:07 -0500
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
I'm happy to have a phone call: we really need to understand this so we can work effectively with you. We're generally pleased with the process so far, but, although you sentences are simple and declarative, I don't feel I know if we should be escalating issues into Issues or not. Is there a convenient time for us to chat? Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:05 AM > To: Richard Ishida; Phillips, Addison > Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); > Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) > Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > > One further thought, if you think a phone call would help to > explain the HTML WG processes please just let me know. > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Cotton > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:33 AM > To: 'Richard Ishida'; Phillips, Addison > Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); > Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) > Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > > > Aharon didn't really understood what he had to do here, and > Addison and I weren't able to understand it either. > > The HTML WG Chairs sent the following email on Sep 7, 2010 that > outlined a plan for how the WG was going to get to Last Call: > > Timeline to Last Call > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html > > > Reminder: - Jan 22, 2010 is the cutoff for escalating bugs for > pre-LC consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal > issued by this date. > >Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be > treated as a Last Call comment. > > If you review the message above it explains in detail what Sam was > trying to explain. Basically in your case if you disagreed with > the disposition of any of your bugs that were filed before Oct 1, > you had until Jan 22 to request that they be escalated into WG > Tracker issues. > > Please let me know if you understand the situations after reviewing > the above message and this email. > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:36 AM > To: Phillips, Addison > Cc: Paul Cotton; public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby > (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); > Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) > Subject: Re: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > > I think one specific question was, what does this mean: > > "--- Comment #57 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-01-17 > 21:54:41 UTC --- > Reminder: - Jan 22, 2010 is the cutoff for escalating bugs for pre- > LC consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued > by this date. > Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be > treated as a Last Call comment. > " > > Aharon didn't really understood what he had to do here, and Addison > and I weren't able to understand it either. > > RI > > Richard Ishida > Internationalization Activity Lead > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > http://rishida.net/ > > On 10/02/2011 06:11, Phillips, Addison wrote: > > Hello Paul, > > > > Thanks for the response. Our list of re-opened bugs is scattered > across a couple of teleconferences. We'll pull the list together > for you. It isn't a long list. > > > > I am not sure that our intention was to escalate them to WG > issues, at least, not in all cases. Our goal was to decide whether > your WG's or editor's proposed resolution satisfied us. I'm not > sure that any issues require resolution before LC, assuming that LC > issues will be dealt with on an equal footing. Nonetheless, I will > check with the WG membership before committing to any particular > resolution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Addison > > > > Addison Phillips > > Globalization Architect (Lab126) > > Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs) > > > > Internationalization is not a feature. > > It is an architecture. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:53 PM > >> To: Phillips, Addison > >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); > >> Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith > (mike@w3.org) > >> Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > >> > >>> Recently (a few weeks ago, actually), our WG reopened a few > bugs > >> filed before your cutoff date. We would like to know how these > will > >> be handled, etc. That is: what is your process for clearing our > open > >> bugs? > >> > >> Can you help us here by explicitly listing the bugs you re- > opened? > >> > >> Please note that the Jan 22 deadline was for the escalation of > bugs > >> into WG issues. See: > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- > html/2010Sep/0074.html > >> > >>> - Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC > >> consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued > by > >> this date > >>> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will > >> be treated as a Last Call comment. > >> > >> Was your intent to convert the re-opened bugs in WG Issues to > ensure > >> they were handled before Last Call? > >> > >> /paulc > >> > >> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > >> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > >> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@lab126.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:48 AM > >> To: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej > Stachowiak > >> (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) > >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org > >> Subject: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > >> > >> Dear HTML5 WG chairs, > >> > >> I have been tasked [1][2] by the Internationalization WG with > >> touching base with you about two topics. > >> > >> 1. Recently (a few weeks ago, actually), our WG reopened a few > bugs > >> filed before your cutoff date. We would like to know how these > will > >> be handled, etc. That is: what is your process for clearing our > open > >> bugs? > >> > >> 2. We noticed also that ISSUE-88 seems to have gone dormant and > are > >> wondering about the status of this issue. There is no recent > update > >> on http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html. Is any > progress > >> being made there. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Addison > >> > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/16 ACTION-16 > [2] > >> http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/19 ACTION-19 > >> > >> Addison Phillips > >> Globalization Architect (Lab126) > >> Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs) > >> > >> Internationalization is not a feature. > >> It is an architecture. > >> > >> > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:19:33 UTC