RE: [w3c sml] Action 108 - tracking bugs

Sure, if we defined update review process to be part of the needsAgreement 
process then editorial+review would be redundant.  I was assuming we were 
using a schema-like model where we arrived at ideological consensus 
through discussion and at that point the transition into editorial 
happened (and even in Schema, if I heard right not all editorials actually 
come back to the group for review so the same bifurcation occurs).  If 
drafting all the changes is part of needsAgreement, that makes it sound 
like the editor(s) just cut and paste ... which I think is a gross 
oversimplification vs current reality, no?  Or am I thinking of it too 
black/white, and the needsAgreement phase gets it say 80% there but the 
editor when incorporating the agreed to ideas is expected to look for 
other areas of the spec that need to be hit (like the "schema profile" 
case, where a section got removed but another half dozen similar bits of 
text live on to mislead readers)?  We can do it pretty much any way as 
long as we are all working off the same understanding.
I am positive with some of the changes in the pipe like aligning with 
Schema terminology that we will need to carefully review some changes. 
Their terms are a complete world unto themselves, and what looks like a 
simple immaterial improvement can drastically alter the semantics.

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787

"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <> 
08/24/2007 01:53 PM

John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, <>

RE: [w3c sml] Action 108 - tracking bugs

The original intent was to leave the requirement for review up to the 
editor after making an editorial change. 
I think a key point here is that anyone may be asked to come up with 
proposed text, not just editors. 
My preference is that, in the case where the group wants to see some text 
before approving, it is not really an 'editorial' task. Anyone in the 
group with the appropriate expertise could be asked to come up with 
proposed text that explains a point. (I believe we've asked non-editors to 
do this a few times already.) This person should be assigned the bug while 
it is still in 'needsAgreement'. Then after the text is submitted and 
agreed upon by the group, it is moved to 'editorial'. In my mind, an 
editorial task is a editing task where that task is reasonably 
well-defined. The editor still has the option to move it to needsReview if 
he/she feels verification is needed before resolving.
We could still have an 'editorialWithReview' keyword. This could cover an 
in-between case.

From: [] On 
Behalf Of John Arwe
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [w3c sml] Action 108 - tracking bugs

Reading through this, it confirms we have a process "bug".  There are two 
exits from Editorial, one needing review by the group of the proposed 
change (needsReview) and the other going straight to resolved w/o that 
review.  We already encountered this once in practice, where Kumar had to 
put a comment in the bug so he wouldn't forget to review the proposed 
change with the group. 
Seems to me we need to separate the two, eg editorial and editorialReview 
or some such. 

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787 

"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <> 
Sent by: 
08/02/2007 04:52 PM 


[w3c sml] Action 108 - tracking bugs

Please review the attached diagram. This is a proposal from the editors
to track the state of bugs. The ovals are actions performed by the WG
and the rectangles represent keywords we can use to track the bug
status. This proposal is a (very) simplified version of what the schema
group is doing. 

Keywords (they are lower case / camel case):

No keyword - the bug is new and ready for triage.

'needsAgreement' - the bug is being discussed or otherwise waiting on
some action and not yet ready for the editors.

'editorial' - the bug is ready for an editor to take it and perform the
required editorial action based on the resolution agreed upon by the WG.
Note that anyone entering a simple 'typo' bug should add this keyword
when they submit the bug so we don't spend time on triage for typos.

'needsReview' - the editorial change is complete but the editor would
like the WG to review the change. This state may be skipped. That is,
the editor may choose to move the bug directly to 'resolved' if she
feels that no review is necessary. 

'resolved' - the bug is resolved.

I will change the bugs we reviewed today to add the appropriate keywords
- assuming I don't get any major objections to this proposal.

[attachment "BugzillaProcess.pdf" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM] 

Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 18:31:04 UTC