W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: [Bug 71] Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND is used

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:43:51 -0700
Message-ID: <42843087.2070502@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> As for managing the Bugzilla bug status, I had kind of assumed that 
> was a failed experiment.  Until you responded, Julian and I were the 
> only ones who had used the system.  Without any usage, it certainly 
> wasn't working as expected.  I appreciate you trying to use it as 
> intended but it still might be a broken process.

Few things are created perfect the first time around - I think it is 
useful but we may need to work with it for a while before we come across 
a process that feels right. For example, it is unclear whether it would 
be preferred in the long term to carry out 'discussion' of an issue in 
the bugzilla comments or the WG email list, or both. As much as this, 
and perhaps other WG processes, needs to be discussed, my preference 
would be to spend the energy getting a draft (or two?) out the door 
first, if possible. Both BIND and QUOTA have come a long way, however 
slowly, and it would be nice to put the final work into them before 
getting stuck on process issues.

> With respect to this particular bug, I don't agree this should be 
> closed. [...]

Apologies, once again, for stepping on the process, it was an honest 
attempt to move things forward from where they had been for months. 
Before closing the issue, I read over the associated commentary / 
discussion on both bugzilla and the WG list, read the latest draft of 
BIND and the relevant sections of ACL, attempted to accurately summarize 
peoples positions and stated my own conclusions on the WG list, 
subsequently made a motion for the issue to be closed and waited two 
weeks for any dissenting opinions to be voiced. By all appearances, it 
seemed the next logical thing to do was to close the issue.

 From my point of view, it still is, however you may disagree with that 
conclusion - is there an issue that has been identified with the text 
that was added to the draft? My reading of things was that there was 
better than rough consensus on the current resolution at the time it was 
being discussed on the list.

Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 04:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:34 UTC