W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:31:25 -0800
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-id: <25F7E28E-746E-41B8-8970-18A7D86F9FCF@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> # 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.
> 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.

That's a reasonable request.

> 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.

My impression agrees with yours. I have recorded this information in  
the respective issues.

> 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?

That part is not a burden. I misinterpreted your original request as  
asking for a recorded specific resolution to ISSUE-73, as opposed to  
merely the process reason it was closed.

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 22:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC