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

Re: Regarding coordination withint W3C

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:26:59 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020126141936.03f9df00@rockynet.com>
To: danield@w3.org
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Daniel,

I will update the three issues per your comments, and assign ownership to you.

-Lofton.

At 03:15 PM 1/18/2002 +0100, Daniel Dardailler wrote:

>Issues #12, 25, 45 deals with coordination with horizontal groups such
>as WAI, I18N, Comm, TAG, etc.
>
>I think we ought to keep them separate the way they are.
>
>For the matter of horizontal technical reviews (WAI, I18N, DI), I
>think we can live with an adhoc tracking system done separately in
>each activity.
>
>The attempt in the past was only done to centralize the list of specs
>to review (e.g. listing upcoming schedule over several months), not to
>actually do shared reviews, and after a while it was just abandonned
>since each group where doing it themselves their own way using their
>own priorities, and following various annoucements list (chairs, ac)
>for tracking.
>
>I realise the issue 12 is more general that just the review (about
>interaction), so I think we should spend some time on wording out a
>clear problem statement: what we would like to do and why wrt
>horizontal technical reviews.
>
>The issue of Comm relationship and TAG are of a different nature.
>
>For Comm, which involves the pubrules (shepperded by our Comm team at
>W3C), we certainly need a point of contact, maybe Ian can be
>that. Note that Dom is also part of it as Webmaster and guardian of
>pubrules. But there is also the issue of external Comm and how we can
>sell QA to the W3C members and the world. What we can ask WG to
>publish in terms of TS results without being sued, etc.
>
>For TAG, it's another case again, and before we better understand what
>the TAG is really going to do, it's hard to say how we want to
>interact with them. Ian is the TAG main editor, so he may be our best
>contact again.
>
>In summary, it's ok assigning these issues to me, as it's my role as
>QA activity lead to try to move forward with them as we move forward
>in the activity.
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 22:01:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT