The state you ask for is “done”.
On the next update I’ll make sure I’ll the issues the editors have
posted as having done get moved into that state. The editor’s to do list
is “pending”. And yeah, it’s a shame we’ve decided to
start moving things into “pending” and then assigning people an AI
to actually complete work to really give the editor’s something to do. I
still don’t believe we should have a state for that in the issue list. We
just shouldn’t accept closing an issue the way we did i024 for example.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005
1:52 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/>
>
