W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: ISSUE-73: Proposed changes to process chapter

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:26:27 +0200
To: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070709122627.GC6561@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-07-09 08:17:38 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> Anyone can re open the issue.

done

> I actually don't agree with the spirit of your suggestions, if I 
> udnerstand them. I do believe we have to do some usability
> testing, and it's hard to see what would be less than some lo fi
> with 10 volunteers.  Your suggested change there seems to
> indicate we might do less. 

My suggested change tries to separate between what we want to
achieve, and how we want to check that procedurally (which, I think,
is fine to say in the note, and which we'll repeat in the CR exit
criteria), from saying that we're sure we'll do it, and how.

I'm happy to re-add the "10-20" behind the "modest number" language.

> What would it be? We don't need to name names in wsc-usecases,
> but I expect some subset (including the proper one) of Rachna,
> Maritza, Serge, and Audian to be involved. We've got some
> benchstrength in this area. 

> And I expect those same people to pursue the more extensive
> resources.

... and maybe others.  I don't want to create a sense in the note
that everything is taken care of -- resources tend to be more
volatile than goals, so let's stick to the goals in our public
pronouncements.

(I hope I'm making sense...)

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 12:26:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:48 GMT