12734 2011-05-24 07:41:21 +0000 Starting with LC2 or perhaps before, all changes need to be associated with a duly filed LC2 or earlier bug 2016-04-28 07:40:48 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG working group Decision Policy unspecified PC All RESOLVED INVALID P2 normal --- 1 mjs mjs lwatson mike mjs mounir Paul.Cotton rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 48725 0 mjs 2011-05-24 07:41:21 +0000 Aryeh Gregor writes: ----------- I notice that there's nothing specific about what changes the editor is allowed to make, beyond "Although editors may field issues through other forums if they wish, we will require editors to address all bugzilla bugs." Does this mean that there are no specific limitations on what changes the editor can make, or just that this document doesn't cover them? In particular, I'd like to know whether the editor will remain free to make substantive changes provided they prove uncontroversial -- except if they would force us to return to Working Draft, of course. For example, adding a specification for a previously-undocumented JavaScript property where no one but implementers is likely to care about the details of how it's specified. 48727 1 rubys 2011-05-24 08:05:22 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > Aryeh Gregor writes: > In particular, I'd like to know whether the > editor will remain free to make substantive changes provided they > prove uncontroversial It is difficult to establish that a given change is "uncontroversial" if there is no prior discussion or even simple notification to the Working Group prior to the change being made. I would consider a bug report to be sufficient for notification provided that sufficient opportunity was provided for people to comment on the bug. As an example of an avoidable problem, bug 11984 is an example of where a bug was opened and resolved on the same day (in fact, within 90 minutes) resulting in the chairs needing to involve a rather heavyweight multi-day process to cause a revert. 48824 2 ayg 2011-05-25 22:36:43 +0000 By "provided they prove uncontroversial", I meant to imply that if they proved uncontroversial ex post facto, they could be left in with no procedural qualms even if there was no bug filed. If someone objected, they could be reverted after the fact. This simply makes it simpler to change the spec in the fairly common case that the editor can predict in advance that the change will be uncontroversial. If he's wrong sometimes, there's no harm done -- he can be asked to revert it. As long as a large majority of changes are uncontroversial, which I believe has historically been the case, this optimizes for the common case and saves effort overall. By contrast, requiring up-front discussion across the board adds process burden even in the large majority of cases where it won't change anything. 48906 3 mjs 2011-05-30 00:31:45 +0000 This bug seems related to bug 12029 and bug 12675. I'll see if I can address this while processing those. 48909 4 mjs 2011-05-30 00:45:18 +0000 My proposed resolution to one of the other bugs is here: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029#c9 48933 5 mjs 2011-05-30 21:34:34 +0000 Via other bugs the text now makes clear that any feature addition should preferably be preflighted with the WG, and any feature addition (even where its feature status is debatable) could be subject to a revert request. Anything that no one objects to will not get reverted. In that sense, any change is ok as long as it proves uncontroversial ex post facto (no one asks to revert), but we strongly recommend that anything which is even arguably a feature addition, even to document longstanding legacy APIs, should be suitably preflighted with the group. Not just in a letter-of-the-law way but a bug or mailing list post with fair opportunity for comments. I think this is now clear enough from the rest of the policy. If my co-chairs agree, my resolution would be to simply remove the remaining FIXME. I'd also like to give Aryeh a chance to comment on whether his concerns are addressed now. 48939 6 ayg 2011-05-30 22:56:34 +0000 My concerns are addressed by the current text, as long as no one takes it upon themselves to review all diffs and object on principle to anything they think is a feature addition or removal. The current text would appear to permit this, since it suggests there's a blanket ban on feature additions/removals and doesn't require anyone to object to the addition or removal itself. I would prefer it if the policy said that the chairs would normally not make a revert request unless someone objected to the technical substance of the commit. To be clear, I'm not saying that they should have to provide any rationale -- "I don't think this is a good feature" would be good enough for me. But not an objection solely on procedural grounds, or based on the hypothetical possible existence of someone who might not like the change. For instance, Sam Ruby's complaint about the addition of an atob/btoa spec was not grounded in an assertion that he or anyone else had an actual problem with the feature. Still, I can live with this policy as long as no one systematically requests the revert of large classes of new changes. 48955 7 rubys 2011-05-31 13:41:50 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > > I think this is now clear enough from the rest of the policy. If my co-chairs > agree, my resolution would be to simply remove the remaining FIXME. +1 - Sam Ruby 49578 8 rubys 2011-06-14 12:12:55 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0023.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0024.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0025.html 66464 9 rubys 2012-04-06 02:12:24 +0000 Related: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16481#c1 66541 10 mjs 2012-04-10 03:13:39 +0000 Per bug 16481, we are considering a blanket ban on features, without prior WG approval. In order to close down on the spec, we may need to eliminate changes that happen entirely outside the process, i.e. without even a bug. Updating title to: "Starting with LC2 or perhaps before, all changes need to be associated with a duly filed LC2 or earlier bug" 66545 11 1112 mjs 2012-04-10 03:54:15 +0000 Created attachment 1112 Diff implementing a bug for every change requirement for LC2 and later 66568 12 rubys 2012-04-10 15:57:32 +0000 (In reply to comment #11) > Created attachment 1112 [details] > Diff implementing a bug for every change requirement for LC2 and later s/tobugs/to bugs/ Modulo this typo: +1 66578 13 1117 mjs 2012-04-10 18:07:56 +0000 Created attachment 1117 v2 fixing the typo 74446 14 rubys 2012-09-25 16:15:55 +0000 Based on <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html>, this proposal should reflect CR instead of LC2. 126248 15 lwatson 2016-04-28 07:40:48 +0000 Closed (superceeded by time). To reopen, please file an issue here: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues 1112 2012-04-10 03:54:15 +0000 2012-04-10 18:07:56 +0000 Diff implementing a bug for every change requirement for LC2 and later bug-for-every-change.patch.txt text/plain 1616 mjs PyBidWctZm9yLWV2ZXJ5LWNoYW5nZS5wYXRjaC50eHQKPyBmZWF0dXJlLWZyZWV6ZS5wYXRjaC50 eHQKPyB0b28tbGF0ZS1mb3ItZmVhdHVyZXMucGF0Y2gudHh0CkluZGV4OiBkZWNpc2lvbi1wb2xp Y3ktdjIuaHRtbAo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09ClJDUyBmaWxlOiAvc291cmNlcy9wdWJsaWMvaHRtbDUvZGVj aXNpb24tcG9saWN5L2RlY2lzaW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sLHYKcmV0cmlldmluZyByZXZpc2lv biAxLjM4CmRpZmYgLXUgLXIxLjM4IGRlY2lzaW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sCi0tLSBkZWNpc2lv bi1wb2xpY3ktdjIuaHRtbAkyIEF1ZyAyMDExIDA3OjA1OjU1IC0wMDAwCTEuMzgKKysrIGRlY2lz aW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sCTEwIEFwciAyMDEyIDAzOjUzOjM4IC0wMDAwCkBAIC04MDIsMTEg KzgwMiwxNiBAQAogcmV2aWV3IHBlcmlvZC4gTGlrZXdpc2UsIHRoZSBXM0MgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHBy b2Nlc3MgaXRzZWxmIGltcG9zc2VzIGEKIGN1dG9mZiBvbiB0aGUgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHBlcmlvZC48 L3A+CiAKLTxwPkR1cmluZyBzdWNoIHBlcmlvZHMsIHdlIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gY2FsbCBhIHRv dGFsIHN0b3AgdG8gdXNlZnVsCi1jaGFuZ2VzIHRoYXQgYXJlbid0IGluIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIHRo b3NlIGJ1Z3MuIEJ1dCB0aGF0IG1pZ2h0IGNyZWF0ZSBhCi1zaXR1YXRpb24gd2hlcmUgYSBwZXJz b24gb3IgZ3JvdXAgc3Ryb25nbHkgb2JqZWN0cyB0byBzb21lIGNoYW5nZQotYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGN1 dG9mZiwgYnV0IHRoZXkgZG9uJ3QgaGF2ZSBhdXRvbWF0aWMgcmVjb3Vyc2UgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUK LW5vcm1hbCBidWcgcHJvY2Vzcy48L3A+Cis8cD5EdXJpbmcgcHJlLUxDIHJldmlldyBwZXJpb2Rz LCBhbmQgZmlyc3QgTGFzdCBDYWxscywgd2UgZG9uJ3Qgd2FudAordG8gY2FsbCBhIHRvdGFsIHN0 b3AgdG8gdXNlZnVsIGNoYW5nZXMgdGhhdCBhcmVuJ3QgaW4gcmVzcG9uc2UKK3RvYnVncy4gQnV0 IHRoYXQgbWlnaHQgY3JlYXRlIGEgc2l0dWF0aW9uIHdoZXJlIGEgcGVyc29uIG9yIGdyb3VwCitz dHJvbmdseSBvYmplY3RzIHRvIHNvbWUgY2hhbmdlIGFmdGVyIHRoZSBjdXRvZmYsIGJ1dCB0aGV5 IGRvbid0IGhhdmUKK2F1dG9tYXRpYyByZWNvdXJzZSB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBub3JtYWwgYnVnIHBy b2Nlc3MuPC9wPgorCis8cD5TdGFydGluZyB3aXRoIHNlY29uZCBhbmQgbGF0ZXIgTGFzdCBDYWxs cywgdGhlIHJhdGUgb2YgY2hhbmdlCitzaG91bGQgc2xvdyBzaWduaWZpY2FudGx5LiBBdCB0aGlz IHBvaW50LCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBleHBlY3QKK3RoYXQgPGVtPmV2ZXJ5PC9lbT4gY2hhbmdlIG11c3Qg YmUgaW4gcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8gYSBidWcgZmlsZWQgYnkgdGhlCityZWxldmFudCBMYXN0IENhbGwg ZGVhZGxpbmUuIFRoaXMgaXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRvIGFjaGlldmUgc3RhYmlsaXR5LjwvcD4KIAog PHA+VGhlcmVmb3JlLCBpbiBleGNlcHRpb25hbCBjYXNlcywgd2Ugd291bGQgYXNrIGZvciBhIGNo YW5nZSB0byBiZQogcmV2ZXJ0ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgTEMtdHJhY2sgZHJhZnQgcGVuZGluZyByZXNv bHV0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBpc3N1ZQo= 1117 2012-04-10 18:07:56 +0000 2012-04-10 18:07:56 +0000 v2 fixing the typo bug-for-every-change-v2.patch.txt text/plain 1617 mjs PyBidWctZm9yLWV2ZXJ5LWNoYW5nZS5wYXRjaC50eHQKPyBmZWF0dXJlLWZyZWV6ZS5wYXRjaC50 eHQKPyB0b28tbGF0ZS1mb3ItZmVhdHVyZXMucGF0Y2gudHh0CkluZGV4OiBkZWNpc2lvbi1wb2xp Y3ktdjIuaHRtbAo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09ClJDUyBmaWxlOiAvc291cmNlcy9wdWJsaWMvaHRtbDUvZGVj aXNpb24tcG9saWN5L2RlY2lzaW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sLHYKcmV0cmlldmluZyByZXZpc2lv biAxLjM4CmRpZmYgLXUgLXIxLjM4IGRlY2lzaW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sCi0tLSBkZWNpc2lv bi1wb2xpY3ktdjIuaHRtbAkyIEF1ZyAyMDExIDA3OjA1OjU1IC0wMDAwCTEuMzgKKysrIGRlY2lz aW9uLXBvbGljeS12Mi5odG1sCTEwIEFwciAyMDEyIDAzOjUzOjM4IC0wMDAwCkBAIC04MDIsMTEg KzgwMiwxNiBAQAogcmV2aWV3IHBlcmlvZC4gTGlrZXdpc2UsIHRoZSBXM0MgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHBy b2Nlc3MgaXRzZWxmIGltcG9zc2VzIGEKIGN1dG9mZiBvbiB0aGUgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHBlcmlvZC48 L3A+CiAKLTxwPkR1cmluZyBzdWNoIHBlcmlvZHMsIHdlIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gY2FsbCBhIHRv dGFsIHN0b3AgdG8gdXNlZnVsCi1jaGFuZ2VzIHRoYXQgYXJlbid0IGluIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIHRo b3NlIGJ1Z3MuIEJ1dCB0aGF0IG1pZ2h0IGNyZWF0ZSBhCi1zaXR1YXRpb24gd2hlcmUgYSBwZXJz b24gb3IgZ3JvdXAgc3Ryb25nbHkgb2JqZWN0cyB0byBzb21lIGNoYW5nZQotYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGN1 dG9mZiwgYnV0IHRoZXkgZG9uJ3QgaGF2ZSBhdXRvbWF0aWMgcmVjb3Vyc2UgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUK LW5vcm1hbCBidWcgcHJvY2Vzcy48L3A+Cis8cD5EdXJpbmcgcHJlLUxDIHJldmlldyBwZXJpb2Rz LCBhbmQgZmlyc3QgTGFzdCBDYWxscywgd2UgZG9uJ3Qgd2FudAordG8gY2FsbCBhIHRvdGFsIHN0 b3AgdG8gdXNlZnVsIGNoYW5nZXMgdGhhdCBhcmVuJ3QgaW4gcmVzcG9uc2UKK3RvIGJ1Z3MuIEJ1 dCB0aGF0IG1pZ2h0IGNyZWF0ZSBhIHNpdHVhdGlvbiB3aGVyZSBhIHBlcnNvbiBvciBncm91cAor c3Ryb25nbHkgb2JqZWN0cyB0byBzb21lIGNoYW5nZSBhZnRlciB0aGUgY3V0b2ZmLCBidXQgdGhl eSBkb24ndCBoYXZlCithdXRvbWF0aWMgcmVjb3Vyc2UgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgbm9ybWFsIGJ1ZyBw cm9jZXNzLjwvcD4KKworPHA+U3RhcnRpbmcgd2l0aCBzZWNvbmQgYW5kIGxhdGVyIExhc3QgQ2Fs bHMsIHRoZSByYXRlIG9mIGNoYW5nZQorc2hvdWxkIHNsb3cgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseS4gQXQgdGhp cyBwb2ludCwgd2Ugd291bGQgZXhwZWN0Cit0aGF0IDxlbT5ldmVyeTwvZW0+IGNoYW5nZSBtdXN0 IGJlIGluIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIGEgYnVnIGZpbGVkIGJ5IHRoZQorcmVsZXZhbnQgTGFzdCBDYWxs IGRlYWRsaW5lLiBUaGlzIGlzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSB0byBhY2hpZXZlIHN0YWJpbGl0eS48L3A+CiAK IDxwPlRoZXJlZm9yZSwgaW4gZXhjZXB0aW9uYWwgY2FzZXMsIHdlIHdvdWxkIGFzayBmb3IgYSBj aGFuZ2UgdG8gYmUKIHJldmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGhlIExDLXRyYWNrIGRyYWZ0IHBlbmRpbmcgcmVz b2x1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgaXNzdWUK