Re: Closing stale evergreen issues

> On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:33 , Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 

Let’s look and make sure they are really Evergreen-specific.

#303 would seem to apply if we get licensing commitments before Rec status or on non-Rec status, yes?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 16:32:35 UTC