W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

About GL Reviews

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:41:52 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020805150918.03f30c60@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

In anticipation that people will be starting to complete their review 
assignments, a bit of QA process might be in order.  Recall a decision that 
we took at Montreal -- the results (GL templates and summaries) of these 
reviews are to be member-only.  This is why we have the review matrix, as 
well as completed reviews, residing in /QA/Group/.

We had several reasons for this policy, including:

-- these are mostly for our own purposes, to help us find problems in the 
GL documents;

-- the GL documents are raw, changing fast, and do not yet represent even 
QAWG consensus;

-- if reviews are to be made public, we first should have QAWG consensus;

-- before we publish anything, we should coordinate with the subject WG 
chair (as a courtesy).

Accordingly, when you finish a review, you should send the completed GL 
review skeleton document *off-list* to Dominique and/or the qa-chairs -- 
remember, www-qa-wg is a publicly archived list (attachments included), so 
if you send it there, it's public.  Someone (Dom or a chair) can then put 
it in /QA/Group/ and send a simple message to QAWG announcing it's presence.

In some cases we might want to share a review with the target WG.  We can 
handle these on a per-case basis, but in any event we will probably still 
want to keep it non-public (most WGs do their business in member-only mode 
still).  We can discuss later, what sort of minimal QAWG (or qa-chair) 
endorsement we want before sharing.

Comments?

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 17:41:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT