Subject: [Masque] To rapid closing of issues

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:55:26 +0000

Hi David and Chairs,

I want to make a general complaint about how the issue tracker is handled
for last call comments. It is great that David want to deal with issues
rapidly. But the fact that the issues are closed immediately after David has
made a suggested way forward is annoying and reducing visibility of the
issues raised. I would really have some chance of responding to proposed
ways forward before the issue is closed and dismissed. I think this is
especially problematic on issues that are non-editorial in nature. Should I
as WG member really have to look through all closed issues to see if there
is any that is non-editorial and where I have input. 

Even if I have not been good at noting issues as non-editorial. I believe
that David is not following the process that was setup:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/wg-materials/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md The
consensus establishment step is totally missing in David's handling of
issues. 

I also think issues of non-editorial nature needs to be lifted onto the
mailing list at least on summary level. The Bot message is not really useful
to make that determination as it become very long during this WG last call. 

I would also like to have at least one working week to respond to comments. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:08:05 +0200

[ + chairs, WG list to BCC ]

Hi Magnus,

I'd like to offer my sincere apologies, it was not my intention to cut the
discussion short. I've been trying to keep a fast turnaround for editorial
issues to avoid getting stuck in git merge conflict hell. From your email,
it appears I've accidentally classified some issues as editorial? Could you
let me know which ones please? It's been two years since the submission of
the first revision of this draft, so I'm somewhat surprised to hear this,
but I fully accept responsibility for getting it wrong.

Thanks,
David

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:55 AM Magnus Westerlund <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> rapidly. But the fact that the issues are closed immediately after David
> has made a suggested way forward is annoying and reducing visibility of the
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/wg-materials/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
> The consensus establishment step is totally missing in David’s handling of
> issues.
>
>
>
> mailing list at least on summary level. The Bot message is not really
> useful to make that determination as it become very long during this WG
> last call.
>
>
>