Re: Review of QA-Ops through SpecGL

At 06:01 PM 12/13/02 +0100, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
>[...]
>I just completed my assignment to review QA-Ops through SpecGL:
>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/12/qaframe-ops-specGL-review
>
>linked from
>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews

Great!  I'll try to study it before Monday.  We have a small amount of 
OpsGL time reserved.

I'd like to factor at least the uncontroversial parts of it into the next 
WG draft of OpsGL (12/20) -- the final pre-Seattle draft.  However, I'm not 
sure we'll have time for any significant issue resolution (but your summary 
is encouraging, "Overall, the OPS guidelines are not far from being A 
conformant, and, FWIW, even AAA. Most of the issues are editorial, not 
significant.")

Your feedback on SpecGL may be more substantive,
"[...] the whole modules/profiles/levels still bear some fuziness to what 
it should apply... I'm more and more convinced that levels are just one 
kind of profiles (anyway, the "level" guideline only contains 1 CP). Some 
SpecGL CP needs clarifications, too."

This will surely generate some SpecGL discussion topics.  We can have a 
look at them on Wednesday, when you will be present.  Again, what we can 
accomplish before 12/20 (last pre-Seattle WG draft) is limited.  We can 
deal with the weightier bits f2f.


>My other assignment for review of QA WG through QA ops will most
>probably not been done for Monday, but I hope to do it for Tuesday,
>though.

Good.  This ought to generate some good substance for discussions about our 
QAWG Process Document (which is WG processes and QA processes 
combined.)  Peter is working on a pre-Seattle draft.  (Hmmm, I didn't put 
it on Seattle agenda and guess that it ought to have a slice of time.)

-Lofton.