Hi,
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:55:36 +0200, Laura Carlson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So far it seems that if there's agreement between implementors and
authors that a certain problem needs solving that is considered to be
in scope
something to solve the problem will be added to the specification. Which
is then incrementally evolved by author and implementor feedback over
the
next few years.
So...
Step number one is...?
Step number two is...?
Step number three is...?
etc.
Last step is proposal is incorporated into spec.
I guess I'm saying that in the four years we've been working on this there
hasn't been a need for this.
Where does bugzilla fit in?
Where does issue tracker fit in?
These would be additional sources of input.
In your statement above:
Where and how is this agreement made?
Mailing list primarily.
Which implementors and authors are you referring to?
Those providing input to the specification in one way or another. Main
criteria is that there's reasonable broad agreement. Of course, that
doesn't mean there's agreement over the specifics.
Those should be included in the procedure's path if they are critical.
I'm not sure having a formal procdure for this is needed, to be honest.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
