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

Re: Next Process Call Wednesday 15th July 7am PDT — Triage is underway

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:26:03 -0700
To: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <2B44E32F-1828-475E-946B-91E9628C5B2A@apple.com>
I created the first four labels and started guessing at some dispositions. Except that they are 

P2021: Priority
P2021: Candidate
P2021: Defer
P2021: Close

because I think we’re talking about the process that would come into effect some time (early?) in 2021.

They are the same revolting colour, to stand out. Up until we have a call, I would welcome anyone nominating issues (and pull requests) into these categories; we’ll decide if we agree in the next call or two. If you *disagree* with someone else’s proposed triage status, please don’t just change the label: write a comment as well (preferably an explanatory comment).



> On Jun 26, 2020, at 17:18 , 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.
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2020 00:26:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 30 June 2020 00:26:18 UTC