RE: ACTION-166 - Recheck status of issues 10 and 73

# Per our policy, issues that are resolved by mutual agreement (as with  
# 73) are closed without prejudice because there is no formal Working  
# Group decision. 

# Thus someone else re-raising the issue is not  
# precluded. In general our approach has been to resort to a Working  
# Group decision only when absolutely necessary, and otherwise allow  
# matters to be settled informally. Perhaps Sam can chime in with his  
# thoughts.

I think when you say "Per our policy", you mean:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

and every step along that path is a "working group decision",
isn't it?

lists states for "bugs" which includes end states

CLOSED and FormalObjection, CLOSED and Disagreed,
CLOSED (and none of those)

The escalation process has several different states which note:
   ** This is an endpoint for the escalation process. **

including
   0. Amicable Resolution
   2.a. Closed without Prejudice
   5.a. Consensus Found
   6. Poll or Vote.

I am asking that the history and which of the final
"endpoint for the escalation process" be clearly recorded
in the ISSUE status, so that the record 
of working group activities and decisions be clear to
someone reviewing the document and the process.

In particular, ISSUE-73 seems to have been closed in
state 0, "Amicable Resolution", while ISSUE-10 seems
to have been closed in state 2.a.

I'm still trying to understand how it is a significant
burden to distinguish, in the issue status, the nature
of the resolution. Unless perhaps I misunderstand, and
the resolution of ISSUE-10 wasn't amicable, and the
original submitter of the issue didn't agree?

Larry

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 20:37:55 UTC