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

Re: Next Process Call Wednesday 15th July 7am PDT (please note the date)

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:51:24 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB58D795-329D-4035-99E2-D6E92E168D31@bbc.co.uk>
Milestones would be a better tool than labels for identifying the P2020 Priority, Candidate and Defer issues. Closed issues don't need a milestone, clearly.


On 27/06/2020, 01:19, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

    We have conflicts on both the 8th and the 22nd, so we agreed to move both to a single call on the 15th.
    
    We patted ourselves on our own backs at the last call; P2019 is probably done. We need formal AC/Director approval.
    
    For P2020, the urgent task is to regroup and decide what we’re going to do.
    
    As you know, we are issue-driven. I thought about creating a table of the issues, so we could see the summary, but I think Github searches make more sense. So my current best idea (seriously, I know, it’s Friday evening and even good ideas are hard to come by) is that we create a set of labels that could be ephemeral (we could delete them after the triage), with what we expect to do or have happen in the P2020 revision:
    
    P2020: Priority (Issues that we ought to commit to doing this time; if we’re not finished on a priority, we might delay in order to finish it)
    P2020: Candidate (If they get enough attention, we’d like to deal with this in this revision)
    P2020: Defer (we know we don’t intend/want to address this year)
    P2020: Close (once the triage is settled, we expect to close this unless someone objects and gives powerful pan-dimensional arguments to keep it open)
    
    P2020: Discuss (we can’t seem to agree on one of the above and discussion is needed)
    
    I’m open to suggestions on the label set. I would make them all the same, distinct and unpleasant colour. My proposal is that we all look at issues without a P2020 label and if we think one is obvious or even probably appropriate, just add it. If you disagree with a label, then take it off, and add "P2020:Discuss" and we’ll sort it out on the call(s).
    
    Does that work?
    
    
    > On Jun 22, 2020, at 17:35 , David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
    > 
    > The usual closers:
    > 
    > 5) Next meeting. Wed July 8th. We’ll be digging into P2021 for a rapid pass on resolving deferred matters, notably Registries.
    > 
    
    David Singer
    Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
    
    
    

Received on Monday, 29 June 2020 07:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 29 June 2020 07:51:55 UTC