Re: ISSUE-58: PlainLiteral and TypedLiteral value for strings [RDFa 1.1 API]

Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 03:14 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> At a minimum, we should give people a PROPOSAL and a minimum of 7 days
>>> to send in objections before closing ISSUEs.
>> Apologies! 
> No need to apologize! I was just trying to make sure we didn't create
> any process issues for ourselves. As Shane outlined, there are times
> where it would have been okay to close an issue w/o discussion and all
> of us have different views on what issues qualify for that treatment.
> Hopefully, we're all a bit more clear about that now.
>> 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.
> In general, yes, that's true. However, we discussed the issue on the
> telecon and one could argue that we OPENed it by doing so. Typically, I
> don't put ISSUEs on the Agenda that are not in the OPEN status - but
> that is my internal thinking, which probably was never verbalized to the
> group.

Thanks for clearing that up, much appreciated :)

> I also thought, per Ivan's request, that we had agreed on the call that
> you would prepare proposals for closing each issue that we discussed,
> send them to me, and I would review and post them in an official
> capacity to close the issue after public review.

Apologies, that was my misunderstanding, I thought Ivan and Shane had 
said this isn't an issue because it's covered in RDFa Core, however it's 
more me getting used to more formal processes after working by myself 
for many years ;)

>> Shall I change it's status back to "RAISED", and as for all these
>> issues, should they be RAISED or OPEN or other?
> I went ahead and reviewed all of the ISSUEs that you submitted and set
> their status to OPEN (as they're all important issues that we need to
> discuss). Thanks again for taking the time to clearly state the problems
> and enter them into the ISSUE tracker.
> Let's try and make it a goal to provide 4 proposals per week to close
> issues. At that rate, we should have most of the RDFa API issues closed
> by early December.

Sounds good, thanks again,


Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 16:47:04 UTC