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

Re: Back from vacation -- time for beta

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:53:18 -0500
Message-ID: <e920a71c0801101153k77b32a21kc986993127c1c50d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "public-mobileOK-checker@w3.org" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

I'd suggest the following formal-ish criteria:

No final 1.0 release for at least 2 months -- that is we'll allow at
least this much time for people to play with it and uncover bugs.
Therefore I'd plan for end of March at this point.

No known show-stopper or high-priority bugs ("P0 or P1" in typical
bug-management lingo)

Buy-in from Dom to make it the official mobile validator

Buy-in from dotMobi that it seems correct and fast enough to use in
ready.mobi -- business conditions, priorities, etc. permitting. That
is I would not like this to be interpreted as a requirement on .mobi.



On Jan 10, 2008 2:41 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> > 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 19:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:53:27 GMT