- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:18:32 -0400
- To: "ext Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>, David Ross <dross@windows.microsoft.com>, "Mark Shlimovich (SWI)" <marksh@microsoft.com>, Doug Stamper <dstamper@exchange.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Doug, On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:39 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Folks- > > It might be useful if specific points were raised as issue in the > WebApps Tracker [1], rather than just floating around on email (be > it PDF, HTML, or plaintext). That way, they could be addressed in > a concise and systematic manner. > > Do people (specifically, the chairs, the editor, and the > contributors) think this would be useful? The general model we used in the WAF WG is to document most "issues" in the spec. We only moved an issue to Tracker when there were clear differences of opinion i.e. no consensus (and we wanted to document additional pointers, etc. regarding the issue). If we follow that model for this case, we would debate/discuss a specific topic before it is officially moved to an issue in Tracker. I realize other WGs follow a model where the threshold for adding an issue to Tracker is a bit more loose. If others think this type of model is more appropriate, I'd be interested in hearing the rationale. -Regards, Art Barstow
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 00:20:53 UTC