- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:38:36 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > I find that unacceptable for WG-tracked issues (of course it's fine for > the author's own issues or to duplicate the WG-tracked issues until the > author believes they've dealt with them). The author can close the > issues in their document as soon as they've made changes, but for many > issues there needs to be some external item for the issues tracker > person to mark state on when the WG agrees the issue is actually closed. I do agree that an issue isn't automatically closed just because the document editor thinks it is. But that doesn't seem to be a big issue -- give change control to somebody else as well, or have the author not close issues before there's WG consensus. IMHO this has worked just fine for previous drafts, though. The document editor makes a proposal about how to resolve a specific issue to the mailing list, and does so in the working document (with the expectation that the change needs to be rolled back if the change turns out not to be ok). The big advantages of having everything in one place are: - document and issues list are in sync *by definition* - published Internet Drafts automatically carry a list of open and resolved issues Just my 2 cents, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 22:39:11 UTC