This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Initial outline: All bugs entered using bugzilla during the relevant Last Call periods will be treated as last call comments. Additionally: a) someone files a LC comment on public-html-comments@w3.org b) we ask them to file a Bugzilla bug instead of using the comments list: b1) they comply and the process is over b2) if they refuse to do this for a good reason then one of the Chairs does the conversion for them c) the WG processes the public comment from b1 or b2 as usual d) the correspondent can be added to the Bugzilla entry so they can comment on the thread in Bugzilla e) the bug or eventual Issue is CLOSED and we inform the correspondent of the processing of their LC comment to get their feedback
Is "not wanting to register with the W3C's bugzilla" a good reason? Bugzilla is not the friendliest of systems, and obviously is much less friendly than sending an email. While I think it's great to encourage people to make use of the system (and thus be able to participate more in the discussion), I'd be a bit worried about discouraging comment from less tech savvy people. Surely there is enough person power in the group to manage such conversions? It doesn't have to be the chairs (who are a more limited resource). In the OWL WG we had WG members record bugs in the issue list. It also seems that Bugzilla isn't ideal for registering *support*, which, after all, are an important form of LC comment. It might be useful to to provide some structured forms of commenting, e.g., a survey form, or "If you'd like to provide positive feedback for feature X add a comment to this bugzilla entry". Just a thought.
(In reply to comment #1) > > I'd be a bit worried about discouraging comment from less tech savvy people. I'd rather not comment on a hypothetical situation. We will make reasonable efforts to support less tech savvy people, and those situations will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > I'd be a bit worried about discouraging comment from less tech savvy people. > > I'd rather not comment on a hypothetical situation. We will make reasonable > efforts to support less tech savvy people, and those situations will be > evaluated on a case by case basis. Well, having just been through several rounds of Fighting Bugzilla Login, I think it's not so hypothetical :( Let me rephrase: I think that HTML should have as wide public review as possible (for both positive and negative comments). This is a large burden on the group and the staff and chairs so I commend efforts to make the admin more manageable (the better to focus on the content). However, I think this Bugzilla is not sufficiently friendly to be a reasonable requirement for LC commenting. (Perhaps a mailing list isn't either, but at least there's precedent there.) Thus, while I think it's really wise to *encourage* commenters to use it, I would find it odd to reject an LC comment merely on the grounds that a commenter didn't wish to use Bugzilla but preferred the mailing list. Maybe I'm just being a nervous nathan about this. Or maybe I'm just a bit hidebound. Anyway, I've expressed it and I guess there's no need for other action a this time. Thanks!
Most of this has already been addressed by defining the process for the LC review period. I will add an additional explanation that anyone who has difficulty filing a bugzilla bug can send mail to public-html-comments instead, and the Chairs or a volunteer will assist.
Clarification of email alternative added in: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.17&r2=1.18&f=h