- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:31:25 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 22:32:00 UTC