- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:37:45 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
Hi Sam, Thanks for the note. Paul and I just got off the phone. I don't believe we have any issues that cannot be resolved with the editor at this time, although I will double-check with the WG during our next teleconference tomorrow. Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:34 AM > To: Phillips, Addison > Cc: Paul Cotton; Richard Ishida; public-i18n-core@w3.org; Maciej > Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) > Subject: Re: process question and query about ISSUE-88 > > On 02/15/2011 11:12 AM, Phillips, Addison wrote: > > 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? > > If you think a phone call would help, I'm probably the most > available > co-chair for this purpose this week. I'll send you my phone number > off > list. > > The short version is that if all of the following are true: > > (1) you have entered a bug, > (2) got a response that you disagree with, > (3) don't see a path to amicable resolution with the editor > (4) are prepared to produce a full concrete proposal with > rationale > > ... then don't be shy and by all means create issues. Be aware > that at > this point we will treat such issues as Last Call issues. This > does not > mean that we won't work diligently to resolve them, it just means > that > we won't hold up proceeding to Last Call until they are resolved. > > > Addison > > > > Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N, > > IETF IRI WGs) > > > > Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > > - Sam Ruby > > >> -----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 16:44:48 UTC