RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on10/13 conf-call

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

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" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>

10/12/2005 03:28 PM

To	"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
cc	<ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
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:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:25 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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/>
>