On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
# Per our policy, issues that are resolved by mutual agreement (as
with
# 73) are closed without prejudice because there is no formal Working
# Group decision.
including
0. Amicable Resolution
2.a. Closed without Prejudice
5.a. Consensus Found
6. Poll or Vote.
I am asking that the history and which of the final
"endpoint for the escalation process" be clearly recorded
in the ISSUE status, so that the record
of working group activities and decisions be clear to
someone reviewing the document and the process.
That's a reasonable request.
In particular, ISSUE-73 seems to have been closed in
state 0, "Amicable Resolution", while ISSUE-10 seems
to have been closed in state 2.a.
My impression agrees with yours. I have recorded this information in
the respective issues.
I'm still trying to understand how it is a significant
burden to distinguish, in the issue status, the nature
of the resolution. Unless perhaps I misunderstand, and
the resolution of ISSUE-10 wasn't amicable, and the
original submitter of the issue didn't agree?
That part is not a burden. I misinterpreted your original request as
asking for a recorded specific resolution to ISSUE-73, as opposed to
merely the process reason it was closed.
Regards,
Maciej
