- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:55:36 -0500
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, www-archive@w3.org, "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, wai-liaison@w3.org
Hi Anne, >> The question that needs a clear and unambiguous answer is, what is the >> step-by-step procedure for a working group member to get a proposal >> into the spec? > > So far it seems that if there's agreement between implementors and authors > that a certain problem needs solving that is considered to be in scope > something to solve the problem will be added to the specification. Which > is then incrementally evolved by author and implementor feedback over the > next few years. So... Step number one is...? Step number two is...? Step number three is...? etc. Last step is proposal is incorporated into spec. Where does bugzilla fit in? Where does issue tracker fit in? In your statement above: Where and how is this agreement made? Which implementors and authors are you referring to? Those should be included in the procedure's path if they are critical. Thanks. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 11:59:50 UTC