- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:28:07 +0100
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Héctor Pérez-Urbina <Hector.Perez-Urbina@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A07517E8@judith.fzi.de>
Hi Alan! >You did the correct thing. It was my mistake to miss the issue. >Apologies again, >Alan Disagreed! Tracker is the culprit! :) A proposal to change the behaviour of Tracker: * When raising an issue, the initial state should be "raised", not "open". * Perhaps, instead of different tables for "raised" and "open", there should be only one for both states (actually: every state different from "closed"). One can easily distinguish between the "degree of openness" by the "State" flag in the table. * similar for the actions: currently, there are distinct tables for "open" and "pending review" tables. I do not regard this to be useful. * The "Issues" Wiki page also talks about an "owner" of an issue: "Each open issue will be assigned an "owner" whose responsibility it is to initiate/lead a discussion, the objective of which is to bring to the WG a proposal to close the issue as RESOLVED, POSTPONED or REJECTED; the owner will normally be the same person who raised the issue." So normally, the owner is the raiser, but for the non-normal cases, what is still missing is a specific "owner" entry for each issue. Cheers, Michael > >On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Michael Schneider wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> In yesterday's telco we overlooked the new issue 96, since it >> hasn't been in >> tracker's "open" section, but in the "raised" section. >> >> When I raised this issue, I remembered the following policy: >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues> >> >> "When creating new issue, it should initially be assigned >> the state "Raised" (rather than "Open")" >> >> However, tracker didn't follow this policy, but marked my new issue >> to be >> "open" first. So I edited the issue to mark it as >"raised"... with the >> result that it effectively became invisible. :-] >> >> How to proceed? I can, of course, go an "re-open" my issue. But we >> should >> think about either changing the policy, or tracker's way to >handle new >> issues. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 16:28:23 UTC