W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some procedures for handling and closing ISSUEs

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:46:31 +0100
Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <8AC8884F-B6FB-441B-BF61-E2098C5197C0@apple.com>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>

On Jan 23, 2013, at 18:57 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Batch issue closings were historically for uncontroversial maintenance.  The notion that we would now batch close hotly contested issues seems risky.  What's to prevent gotchas?

The fact that they are announced, and we all have the opportunity to say "please don't close that, it is still a contested issue".

> Jonathan
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
>> I would be very pleased if we could modify this slightly by having a low-volume announce mailing list for precisely these sorts of things. 
>> 	Aleecia
>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:08 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> Thanks for your question!
>>> What I meant with “silence means agreement” is that, e.g., once I sent an email where I suggest to close an issue,
>>> participants that cannot live with the proposed resolution should indeed reply to this mail and say so.
>>> This may require re-stating concerns once or even multiple times. The reason is that (while I try), I sometimes overlook a concern or may falsely assume that a concern has been resolved.
>>> Note that due to the heterogeneous mix and the conflicting interest, I believe that we can only make progress if we to focus
>>> on and address on strong and sustained objections (“cannot live with”).  Again, not responding to my emails suggesting to close an issue will make me believe that you can live with the proposed resolution.
>>> Regards,
>>> matthias
>>> On 23/01/2013 10:11, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>>>> Matthias,
>>>> Could you clarify your view that "[s]ilence means agreement"?  Are you suggesting that, once a participant has expressed a concern, they have the burden of perpetually re-raising that concern?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jonathan
>>>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>>> Hi Team,
>>>>> ISSUEs formalise specific questions under discussion in the group.
>>>>> In order to ensure that we are all on the same page and continue to
>>>>> operate smoothly,
>>>>> I would like to give some info/background on handling of ISSUES.
>>>>> Questions/feedback is welcome!
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> matthias
>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>> STATE of an ISSUE: Each issue has a status that can be
>>>>> RAISED: Someone (anyone) believes that this is a topic to discuss
>>>>> OPEN: Questions/topics under active discussion
>>>>> PENDING_REVIEW: The discussion has concluded and a proposed
>>>>> resolution is on the table
>>>>> CLOSED: We accepted the proposed resolution
>>>>> POSTPONED: We decided not to discuss this issue at this point in time.
>>>>> GENERAL:
>>>>> 1. - Issues should usually only be closed if there is an documented
>>>>> proposal that does not trigger sustained and substantiated objections
>>>>> (i.e., everyone can live with this option).
>>>>> 2. - If this is not possible (i.e., none of the proposals is acceptable
>>>>> following point (1)), then the chairs may ask for input and decide
>>>>> [so far, we only needed executed (2) a single time]
>>>>> - Silence means agreement, i.e., if I ask for objections and nobody
>>>>> reponds, I assume agreement and consensus.
>>>>> - Please only speak for yourself/ your organisation: Do not send emails
>>>>> like "I believe that Joe objects". I am likely to ignore such emails in
>>>>> the future.
>>>>> [Note: It is OK to send wakeup emails behind the scenes ("hey joe,
>>>>> are you aware that Matthias is closing this issue")]
>>>>> - Try to substantiate your objection/concern and indicate what changes
>>>>> you would like to see
>>>>> - If I attempt to close issues via Email, I send an explicit email
>>>>> asking whether anyone sustains and substantiates an objections (the
>>>>> emails usually saying "Batch closing...")
>>>>> - Usually, I only attempt this if I perceive sufficient agreement in the
>>>>> group (I may be wrong)
>>>>> - If you believe further discussion is needed or that I misrepresented
>>>>> the status of this issue, please respond.
>>>>> CLOSING at a F2F:
>>>>> - We may decide to close issues during F2F meetings
>>>>> - This will be reflected in the minutes
>>>>> - In the future, I will do a better job informing all participants
>>>>> (e.g., my an email saying that we decided to close issues A, B, C)
>>>>> Meaning of "CLOSED"
>>>>> - Once an ISSUE is CLOSED, we believe that we have resolved the question
>>>>> at hand - either by answering it or it became irrelevant
>>>>> - Usually, ISSUEs are only re-opened if we receive new information/insight
>>>>> - You can still provide new insight / input / observations to convince
>>>>> the group to re-open an issue.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 11:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:18 UTC