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

all QAWG -- an action item

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:01:35 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020718104824.02ec5ec0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Action item for all QAWG:

1.) Everyone had an action item to sign up for review assignments ([1]) by 
the 7/24 telecon.  Very few have done it.  Since the telecon was postponed 
until 7/31, we should extend the deadline until then.  After the deadline, 
I propose that the chairs should pick the topics for any unfilled slots and 
assign them to the respective QAWG member (comments?).

To be clear -- you have to complete your review by 7/31.  In fact, we 
*want* to spread them out somewhat.  But you do need to your 
subjects.  Preferably also choose reasonable completion dates.  Choose 
subjects for Ops and Spec.  You can also pick a subject for TestGL if you 
like, but it will likely be late August before we have a TestGL draft 
suitable for experimental usage.

If you have questions, we can discuss at 7/31 telecon.  IMO, the main 
issues are:

-- distributing the due dates of the reviews so that, for example, we have 
Spec reviews covering next major versions (Aug, Oct, etc).

-- coverage for some particular reviews, such as the CSS charter/Ops review 
that I did last week, the XMLP Last Call (SpecGL) that Kirill volunteered 
for, and pending UAAG 1.0 (4th) Last Call (SpecGL).

If you know the subject you'd like to review but not the date, leave the 
date as "[tbd]" for now.

2.) per [1], you sign up by sending an email message to Dom (Cc: to the QAWG).

3.)  You don't have to use the same subject for both Ops and Spec.

4.)  Note.  The SpecGL can usefully be applied to a specification at *any* 
stage ... WD, LC, CR, PR, Rec.  Any one gives equal value back to *us*, 
QAWG.  As far as value to other WGs, before PR or Rec is obviously 
best.  We should consider value to other WGs -- i.e., a review that is 
useful to them -- as a desirable extra benefit, but not our principal goal 
at this stage.  Our principal goal is experimental usage, to flush out GL 
problems, and to give each QAWG member a solid understanding of the 
implications of what we have put into the GL documents.

5.)  We each also will have one "techniques analysis" -- either Ops or Spec 
or Test.  We should add another column to [1], perhaps.  We should try to 
get roughly equal numbers for each of the three.

Questions or comments?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0045.html
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 18:59:03 GMT

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