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

Re: Closing stale evergreen issues

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:33:46 +0900
To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-Id: <05F89F93-2389-4980-88A3-3BBBDAF0F356@rivoal.net>


> On Jan 10, 2020, at 10:49, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

David,

As a chair, do you want to conclude that this is implied in the decision we've made to land everblue/teal and that I can close these, or do you want to run a separate CfC, or do you want to go over this over the phone next time?

As it is, detailed issues about the abandoned evergreen proposal seem to be noise to me, and I'd rather get them closed sooner than later, to give better visibility to actual open issues.

—Florian



Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 15:17:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 January 2020 15:17:47 UTC