RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13 conf-call

Hi Marc, 

 

Regarding how i024 is tackled ...

 

During the Redmond F2F the TC reached a consensus for 
resolving the issue i024 (to add clarification text to the spec for the term 
"observed"). This consensus resulted into - a> closing the issue and b> 
opening an AI  to follow up the resolution. At that time, the TC 
believed this AI to be fairly unambigous and well scoped. However we 
continued to have some interesting discussions about the AI  but at 
this point of time we all seem to be on the same page; so all is 
well.

 

In essence, Issues and AI are both valid and commonly 
accepted tools for tracking the progress of a TC.  I 
personally don't see anything wrong with closing an issue if the TC reaches 
a clear consensus about the resolution. The follow-up of the resolution can 
be tracked by a simple AI.

 

Thanks,

Sanjay

  

  
  From: Marc Goodner 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 13:58 
  PM
To: Doug Davis; Patil, Sanjay
Cc: Anish Karmarkar; 
  Christopher B Ferris; 
Subject: 
  RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 
  10/13 conf-call

  

  

  
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/>
>