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

RE: ATTN reviewers! (Reminder & New Skeletons)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:49:56 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020824093403.0386d610@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
I agree that there will be exception cases.  But it should not be an 
individual decision, except in really extraordinary circumstances.  It 
should be cleared with QAWG or chairs or ...

At 01:54 PM 8/23/2002 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

> > This is a reminder that review assignment results are NOT to be sent to 
> public lists.
>
>A WG might require that the summary would be sent to the public comments 
>list in order to take any effect.

There are all sorts of variations where exceptions might be warranted.  If 
the WG chair invites it to be sent to a public list (I think that was the 
case with XMLP), that's fine.  Also you could send it to the WG chair and 
he could post it publicly (although this is probably contrary to process, 
for example in the case that it is last call.)

We need, however, to separate the issues of making the review public, and 
disambiguating whether it is a personal contribution or a QAWG 
contribution.  In the case that we are commenting as a group or the review 
might possibly be interpreted as a QAWG position, it should not be sent 
without some consensus process.


>This is the ambiguity we ran into with XML Protocol review the process to 
>submit issues for the last call is through the public list.
>
>So I think we should amend our rule with
>
>&.If otherwise necessary, MUST put an appropriate disclaimer that the 
>review results were not discussed by QA WG and represent solely your opinion

Actually, that disclaimer ought to be in the header of the skeletons.  It 
could be deleted when and if there is QAWG consensus.

I think it would be better to keep the rule as is, and indicate that 
exceptions should be cleared with QA chairs or QAWG at large.

Btw, this indicates that it is perhaps a good idea to put our "QA Process 
Document" project on higher priority and actually finish something.  (QAWG 
is going to fail the OpsGL review, which I believe Dom has signed up for, 
because we don't have a process document!).

-Lofton.
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 11:52:21 GMT

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