[Ontology-editors] procedure? for old SF item, now high priority

[Karen Christie]

Cool, thanks Jane for putting this on your to do list, and to both of you 
for comments on procedure.

-Karen


On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Midori Harris wrote:

> I agree; if an item is unassigned, or if you have any other reason to want to 
> back up the priority change, email like this is fine too.
>
> m
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Jane Lomax wrote:
>
>> Hi Karen - I think upping the priority on an old item is fine, as long as 
>> it's assigned to someone so they'll get an email.
>> 
>> I'll do that item today for you.
>> 
>> Jane
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Karen Christie wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I was about to create a new SF item requesting a definition change to an 
>>> existing term, but before I did that, I did a search to check for related 
>>> items, and found that there was an existing item that was on basically the 
>>> same subject, so I posted comments there and marked the item high 
>>> priority.
>>> 
>>> But then I was thinking this might not be a very good way to get quick 
>>> action on an old item, so I wanted to ask about the best way to handle a 
>>> situation where one wants to bring an old item back to the forefront for 
>>> action, and also get speedy action on this one:
>>> 
>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1411241&group_id=36855&atid=440764
>>> 
>>> It is currently assigned to Jane, do you still handle routine editing? or 
>>> if you don't, then if you could relinquish it, and may be Midori could do 
>>> it, or I could, that would be great.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> -Karen
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ontology-editors mailing list
>>> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
>>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>