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

Re: about Last Call

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:47:04 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021212084518.01acd608@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Although our Guidelines apply to all WGs, I suggest we target a 
subset.  Perhaps a good place to start is to target those WGs that we:
1. use their specifications as examples
2. already have a relationship there.

Once we identify these WGs, then we determine if we want to exclude any of 
them.  Then, we see if there are additional WGs we want to add.

Lynne

At 07:46 PM 12/9/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>QA Working Group --
>
>The act of publishing Last Call will entail some stuff that we haven't 
>paid proper attention to yet.  See [1].  For example, item #1 in [1] means 
>that we will have to formally make a decision and be sure that it is 
>minuted.  Seattle topic, I think.
>
>An interesting question is about item #2:
>"The Working Group estimates which W3C Working Groups and other parties 
>should review the last call draft. It is preferable to secure review 
>commitments before announcing the last call."
>One obvious "estimate" is:  EVERYONE (all WGs).  According to our plan, 
>conformance to these documents is going to be mandatory for all 
>WGs.  Perhaps there is a smaller subset, but it is not obvious.
>
>If "all" is indeed the case, then the 2nd sentence of the quote implies 
>that we will be busy with some initial WG outreach between Seattle and 3rd 
>February (target publication date).
>
>Thoughts?
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/LastCall
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 08:54:57 GMT

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