- From: Valentina Popescu <popescu@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:57:02 -0400
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF791AB54F.AC6DF32F-ON85257360.00550B77-85257360.00579EC3@ca.ibm.com>
This note is in response to action http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/122 , proposal for submitting comments on issues for which bugzilla defects are already opened. Context for this proposal: The SML workgroup uses bugzilla defects to track any open issues that may result in editorial changes to be applied to the SML core or IF drafts. Once the issue identified by a bugzilla defect is discussed and agreement reached within the group, the editors are asked to make the required editorial updates based on these discussions. Issue addressed by this proposal: Workgroup members often make comments and suggestions on issues addressed in a bugzilla defect by sending notes to the public list. These comments are not attached to the corresponding bugzilla. There are a few issues with this approach: 1. For defects marked ?editorial? or ?needsReview?, editors could miss some important comments related to the actual proposal. When working on an editorial defect, the editor is left with the task of browsing the public list and finding all comments related to the defect he is trying to address. This is a tedious task and highly error prone since it is very easy to miss some comments if comments are made in notes not having the defect info in the note?s subject. Also, the editor may mistakenly skip over some of those notes, if notes have the same subject. 2. For ?needsAgreement? and ?needsReview? defects, workgroup members can miss some of the comments and as a result fail to answer/review them. To have a meaningful discussion over an open issue, the thread of discussion should be kept handy so that somebody can browse to get the latest comments and see the state of the discussion. It is very hard to do that in a productive way by just using public list's archived information. Proposal: Every discussion related to an existing bugzilla defect should be recorded in that bugzilla as a comment. The reply should not be sent to the mailing. The state or keywords for that defect does not matter; as long as the comment is made to an existing bugzilla defect, the comment should go into bugzilla and not the public list. Note that the mailing list will pick up this comment since bugzilla sends an email notification to the public list on any comment or status change. By using bugzilla to record comments on a defect, the discussion thread can be very easily followed as comments follow a linear pattern; every comment comes after the other and somebody can easily reply to a comment ( adding comment #nb ) or just inspect the state of the discussion. It is also easy for an editor to point to the comment #nb when describing why some changes have been applied to the document. See below the chart describing this proposal Thank you, Valentina Popescu IBM Toronto Labs Phone: (905)413-2412 (tie-line 969) Fax: (905) 413-4850
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: action122.JPG
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 15:57:28 UTC