That's Editor-done. Please see attached for the issues
process and statuses.
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 13:52 PM
To: Patil,
Sanjay
Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Christopher B Ferris; Marc Goodner;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE:
[ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
conf-call
well, I'd like add a new state
that says "the editors have done their job but the TC has not reviewed it yet"
- I really think we need to be able to see the editor's TODO list.
-Doug
"Patil, Sanjay"
<>
10/12/2005 03:28 PM
To
"Marc Goodner"
<>, Christopher B
Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "Anish Karmarkar"
<>
cc
<>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx-editors]
RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
conf-call
Yes Marc, you did not provide us any opportunity to blame you
so far but
then why should we lose any opportunity :-)
I agree with
you that we may not need additional status as long as the
issues list gets
update soon enough. Personally if the issue list is
updated before Monday
noon, that helps me a lot since that's when I send
out the proposed list of
issues and it will be good to refer the latest
issues
list.
Thanks,
Sanjay
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Christopher B
Ferris; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc:
>
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues
> for
discussion on 10/13 conf-call
>
> Moving to editors list to
discuss the issue state proposal here.
>
> I'm not going to
defend not updating it, I've been slow. My
> apologies. I
> will
only point out that I've only missed one window if
> opportunity
for
> update which was the last call.
>
> Now how many
intermediate states do we want? Right now when an issue
> gets an
accepted proposal I move it to pending so the editors can pick
> it up.
I think, personally, that it is madness that we are resolving
> issues
and assigning AIs for someone to actually propose
> clear text
for
> the editors to use. Now I have been moving those to pending when
that
> happens so they should go out of the Open list. I made some
> mistakes in
> the last update and forgot to more a couple to
pending,
> perhaps this is
> where your complaint is coming from
Chris. Now do we really
> want another
> state that says almost
pending?
>
> I think your real complaint is that I'm not updating
the issue list
> often enough. I agree at least since the last call. I
recommend we do
> not add another state to the issue list.
>
> Now on to the update problem. I try to update the issue list
>
soon after
> the minutes come out (with varying success). I will not
agree
> to update
> the issue list this any more often than this
as things stand today. I
> actually try not to update it more than this
since it always
> changes the
> URI of the issue list. If we can
get a stable URI to the issue list I
> could agree to do incremental
updates in addition to the one after the
> call. That would also make it
a lot easier to share the responsibility
> so that other editors can
move their items from pending to done when
> they update a draft with a
resolution without making everyone
> in the TC
> wonder if they
have the latest version of the issue list.
>
> So what's going on
with CVS? Is that our answer for getting a
> stable URI
> and
making this thing easier to update?
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:25 AM
> To: Christopher B
Ferris
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx]
Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
> conf-call
>
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> >
> >
Sanjay/Paul,
> >
>
> <snip/>
>
>
>
> > Finally, I would like to make a request of the issues list
> editor. It
> > would REALLY help if the issues
> >
list could be updated to reflect the issues resolved as soon as
>
possible
> > after they are resolved.
> > It has been over
2 weeks since the issues list was last
> updated. Thus,
>
> > two weeks of issues
> > resolutions are not reflected
in the list.
> >
> > I know what is involved in maintaining
the list and that the editors
> are
> > busy with other
responsibilities
> > (aren't we all!), but possibly the addition of
an
> intermediate status
> > that removes an issue from
"open"
> > to a status that means that it has been resolved but the
specifics
> have
> > not been documented in the issues
>
> list would be in order for times like these when there isn't
enough
> time
> > to devote to making a full pass
> >
at updating issues with the details of their resolutions,
> etc. It is
> > quite difficult to have to compare the
> > issues list
with the minutes from the past meetings to
> determine which
>
> > issues are really open and
> > which have simply not
been updated to reflect the decisions
> of the TC.
> >
>
> +1
> -Anish
> --
>
>
<snip/>
>
2005-Sep-21-ws-rx-Spec Issue Process.ppt
