- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:37:26 +0100
- To: www-archive@w3.org, steven.pemberton@cwi.nl
- Cc: process-issues@w3.org
* Steven Pemberton wrote: >> I would appreciate if the HTML Working Group could document >> the design principles established by this new feature in a better way >> than marking this issue as unresolved in the Group's issue tracker, >> >> http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-abstractions?page=2 >> http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-abstractions?id=8444 > >You are right that we did forget to mark those as closed. I see the tracker is updated now, thanks, it's good to see rationale for decisions documented, even if late. I am a little bit concerned about this though, I'd appreciate if you could answer some questions to remove my doubts. As you say above, the Working Group resolved this issue and others, but the tracker didn't reflect this. Isn't the tracker the main source of information about the status of issues? I would think someone should have noticed this when drafting or reviewing the transition request, so there must be some other tracking system that reflects status of issues more accurately? A number of issues changed status since yesterday, but I and other re- viewers apparently didn't receive any notification of such changes. It would seem the tracker should be linked to e-mail so reviewers can take note of resolutions and acknowledge the response. Isn't this the case? Sadly though sometimes reviewers aren't satisfied by responses, as I wasn't in case of the issue above, but the tracker does not reflect my dissatisfaction. This seems to confirm that there is some other tracking system, perhaps this other tracking system could be combined with this one to avoid any confusion? Looking a bit around, I see old issues like http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=8302 As you know, I wasn't satisfied by the response either, this does not seem to be reflected there. I raised this issue then with the HCG and you came back to me saying the issue will be addressed "by removing the list from M12N." The PR still has the list, so I wonder what happend? Another issue that changed status since yesterday is http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=8334 As noted above, I never learned of the resolution. I checked my inbox and all I could find was the initial auto-reply that the issue got added to the tracker. Now, since the tracker never got updated, I wonder whether there was some other e-mail response? I could not find it in the www-html-editor archives, I'd appreciate if you could lookup the details, possibly a pointer to an archived copy of it, so I can check what's wrong with my mail setup. It's important to me to know, since I cannot agree with the rejection of the issue, I'd be sorry if I had missed the opportunity to provide further clarification on the issue. Thanks again, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 02:36:39 UTC