Subject: on our bug tracking (and closing) process

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:19:00 -0700

I believe the following captures our most recent discussion on the 
meaning of a bugs status.

NEW: The bug is new.
ASSIGNED: The assigned person will take point on proposing new text.
RESOLVED: The WG has reached rough concensus on a proposed change. Note 
that the type of resolution (e.g. FIXED, INVALID...) is NOT being used 
to indicate anything presently, as the available options don't seem to 
fit our process very well.
VERIFIED: The text has been verified as included in the current revision 
of draft (published to webdav.org). The status will be changed to by the 
verifier.
CLOSED: The latest draft, including the agreed upon text, has been 
submitted to IETF.

We will look into modifying the available types of resolutions so that 
they may more closely reflect our process...

Best,
Elias

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:33:45 -0700

Elias,

This sounds good to me. Only two tweaks

* we had agreed that the new text proposals would be to the list, and  
not within Bugzilla
* we had agreed that anyone can perform the verification task (except  
the editor who made the change)

- Jim

On Oct 27, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Elias Sinderson wrote:

> RESOLVED: The WG has reached rough concensus on a proposed change.  
> Note that the type of resolution (e.g. FIXED, INVALID...) is NOT  
> being used to indicate anything presently, as the available options  
> don't seem to fit our process very well.
> VERIFIED: The text has been verified as included in the current  
> revision of draft (published to webdav.org). The status will be  
> changed to by the verifier.
> We will look into modifying the available types of resolutions so  
> that they may more closely reflect our process...
>
>
> Best,
> Elias
>