W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > January 2020

Re: Closing stale evergreen issues

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 20:49:48 -0500
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <93e4479d-cd05-e2ac-75d8-f3a98d96fcb2@w3.org>

On 1/9/2020 8:47 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 2020, at 22:53, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/9/2020 5:04 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> With the everblue branch now merged in, I think we can close (as accepted) https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79
>> A question is whether we should have some "stub" issue open to remind us of the need for Continuous Development - until we actually have AC approval of Process 2020.  If so, #79 is as good as any to keep open.
> I don't mind keeping 79 open as a reminder of what we're working on.
>
> However…
>
>>> After that, since we went down the everblue/teal path rather than the evergreen one, I think we should close all other remaining evergreen issues:
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Evergreen
>
> I still think we should close the rest.
+1
> They are detailed issues about a variant of the process we are no longer pursuing. It is good that they are documented, but there's nothing to be done, so keeping the issues open is just noise that's confusing for people trying to review the actual open questions.
>
>>> I think this is effectively implied by the decisions we've already taken, but I didn't want to close without an actual group resolution or confirmation by the chair.
>>>
>>> —Florian
Received on Friday, 10 January 2020 01:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:54 UTC