- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:27:42 +0200
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, www-archive@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Hi Gregory, I like everything you proposed here. I would only add two things. 1) It would be nice to have issue-tracker issues handled by WG member review like the sections of the draft. This way we ask at least two WG members to volunteer to review each issue and provide a summary report on their opinions on it. If need be the chairs could also appoint someone to review if the chairs felt the volunteers didn't provide enough balance. 2) I'm not sure your proposal requires bugzilla at all then. I think the Wiki actually serves as a very good tool situated between the issue-tracker on one side and the WG’s email, IRC and telecon deliberations/discussions. I've tried to consistently setup each of these issues I've raised to provide a quick mailto link to contribute to the WG discussion and another quick email search link to find the messages with that same subject. This provides a nice way to link the wiki to the email discussions (I'm thinking of trying to do something similar for IRC). Email and IRC provide a nice persistent log of the discussions while the Wiki pages can evolve to reflect the feedback and criticisms form the WG. The Issue-tracker then provides a nice mechanism to stay on top of what's going on. Other than those two points, I fully support your suggestion. Take care, Rob On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > aloha, josh! > > my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was > logged > in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue, > it is > not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in > their > capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect > that: > > * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in > at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed > > * OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG > > * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that > issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so > that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and > objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that > the issue should not be closed > > or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as > "PROPOSED"? > > bugzilla could then be reserved for micro-issues and detailed > discussion > thereof, thus avoiding the bifurcation of feedback streams that using > bugzilla to propose issues would cause... > > gregory > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, > as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them > with others. -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net > Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> > To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > Cc: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, > Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, > www-archive@w3.org, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "Gregory J. > Rosmaita" > <oedipus@hicom.net> > Sent: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:43:34 +0100 > Subject: Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in > adding > issues) > >> Steven Faulkner wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> Why can't there be a 'proposal tracker' implemented that is open to >>> anyone in the working group to add proposals to, via a form perhaps >>> that asks for certain information about the proposal, so it can then >>> be evaluated and debated by WG members? >> >> That sounds like a good idea to me also. >> >> Cheers >> >> Josh > ------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 19:28:43 UTC