- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:14:55 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote: > On 10/28/2010 02:51 PM, Nathan wrote: >> okay we all agree, great. >> Issue closed as void. > > Yikes! Don't close issues in the ISSUE tracker without a PROPOSAL to the > mailing list followed by no objections to the given proposal. > > The issue wasn't void - we needed to have that discussion and record the > outcome of the discussion in a formal way. At a minimum, Mark hasn't had > a chance to chime in yet and neither has the public. Just because you > raised the issue and feel that it has been dealt with doesn't mean that > it's dealt with. :) > > In general, once an issue is in the ISSUE tracker, we have to go through > the process and address the issue as a Working Group. Just because the > majority of people in the RDFa WG agree that this is the right direction > doesn't mean that the general public doesn't know something that could > affect that direction. > > At a minimum, we should give people a PROPOSAL and a minimum of 7 days > to send in objections before closing ISSUEs. Apologies! I thought it could go from a status of "RAISED" to "CLOSED" without worry, as in "NOT AN ISSUE" - whereas if it was OPEN then it would have to go through the full procedure. Shall I change it's status back to "RAISED", and as for all these issues, should they be RAISED or OPEN or other? Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 19:16:01 UTC