Re: postponed issues (was Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday October 24, 2007)

Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> I switched to raise because this seemed to be consistent with past  
> usage (see, e.g., WebOnt issues list [1]), and because propose sounds  
> to much like PROPOSED. My proposal (oops) is that issues be *raised*  
> and subsequently either *accepted* or *rejected*. Once accepted, an  
> issue becomes *open* until it has been *resolved* by the WG. As I  
> understand it, all open issues will need to be resolved eventually,  
> even if the resolution is only to postpone them. I would, however,  
> welcome an official ruling on all this from Sandro.

I don't think there's any official W3C position on this kind of stuff.
I can ask around for other people's experiences, but I think it's really
up to you and Alan as chairs to decide (with input from the WG) what
will work for this WG.

I think your terminology here is fine, although if I had to decide, I'd
probably steer away from "raise" entirely, now that the ambiguity has
surfaced.  I don't have a problem with "proposed", in that I see it as a
proposal to open an official issue.  How about "reported", in the sense
of bug-reports and also the sense of something being "reportedly" true.

   - an issue is reported
   - it may be rejected or accepted
   - if accepted it's "open"
   - then it becomes "closed" by being resolved or postponed.

*shrug*

    - Sandro


> Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
> 
> 
> On 23 Oct 2007, at 18:30, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We discussed this in the first teleconf [1] and agreed that,  
> >> rather than migrating these (probably mostly irrelevant) issues,  
> >> WG members who want to champion an issue from the WebOnt list  
> >> should simply raise an appropriate new issue.
> >
> > Argh. Here I go nitpicking. Ian, you've written "raise" an issue  
> > several times today. In the telecon we talked about proposing  
> > issues (say, in the google code issue list) and the fact that  
> > chairs have discretion about which proposed issues are "raised".  
> > (This is Sandro's distinction. In my lexicon, raise =  
> > sandro:propose and open = sandro:raise.)
> >
> > This is important because only chairs can sandro:raise/open issues  
> > and they are not required to sandro:raise/open all issues that the  
> > WG participants raise/sandro:propose.
> >
> > Can we pick a terminology and stick with it? :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bijan.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 18:16:57 UTC