W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Back from vacation -- time for beta

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:41:50 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4A442AB@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: "public-mobileOK-checker@w3.org" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

> Apologies for missing the call earlier this week. Do we need another
> or can we maybe discuss here? I think that we essentially know and
> agree on what needs to happen and that we can release after a few more
> fixes.

The main question to my mind is "When do we say it is over?" - i.e. what
are the exit criteria?

Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com]
> Sent: 10 January 2008 19:36
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-mobileOK-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Back from vacation -- time for beta
> 
> On Jan 10, 2008 4:50 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> > Belated follow up on this - I guess my main interest in the
discussion
> > was for us to agree/understand how the beta will be conducted, what
the
> > point of it is and how it ties in with ACTION-594.
> >
> > It could be that we decide that "beta" just means the same thing as
> > alpha, i.e. it's here for you to try out and report bugs if you find
> > them, but I think we'd benefit from a clearer idea and some specific
> > objectives.
> 
> Yes that was my notion. Picking this point in development is a bit
> arbitrary, though I do feel like we've both made significant progress
> and fixed plenty of bugs, and incorporated the first rounds of
> feedback, so, having tied that off we can reasonably put out a 'beta'
> on schedule at this point. This also signals that we think this
> software is closer than not to release quality. I think we think that.
> 
> But a few more items have popped up since my original e-mail and I
> think we need to deal with those before a 'beta'. So, I'm on that.
> 
> Anything else need to be updated and tidied up before a beta?
> 
> Apologies for missing the call earlier this week. Do we need another
> or can we maybe discuss here? I think that we essentially know and
> agree on what needs to happen and that we can release after a few more
> fixes.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:42:09 GMT