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

About new Process Document and Errata

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:16:04 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021028151419.03c01d20@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

We were unable to coordinate and submit a consensus QAWG position on the 
new Errata Proposal.  However three of us submitted individual 
comments.  Comments from David, Lofton, Kirill respectively can be found at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0003.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0004.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0005.html

As mentioned in below-attached earlier message, the comments were too late 
to influence the draft of the errata bits of the new Last Call draft of the 
Process Document.

I am going to submit comments as an individual.  If anyone feels strongly 
that QAWG should take a position (last time, few cared about the subject), 
speak up.

IMO, there should be a lightweight, but *normative*, errata process.  I.e., 
the only way that errata can be normative now (as currently proposed) is to 
fold them into the Technical Report and republish the whole thing.

I think there could be an optional lightweight process:

1.) review/approval as now proposed -- 3 week last call on WG-approved 
errata, w/ resolution of any objections;

2.) publish W3C-approved errata in /TR/, with "Latest Version", "This 
Version", "Previous Version" sort of control;

3.) add to SoTD a link to "Normative Errata", along with the current 
required link to the WG's errata list (which is either unapproved or 
WG-approved, but not W3C approved).

(Any thoughts or comments on this?)

-Lofton.

>Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:40:30 -0600
>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: Fwd: [Last call] 24 Oct 2002 Process Document (until 28   November)
>Resent-From: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-qa-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/1059
>X-Loop: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-qa-wg.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-qa-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
>
>See request for "Last Call" comments on new Process Document:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002OctDec/0087.html
>
>Included here is a reference to a new Errata Proposal (dated last Friday, 
>18 October):
>
>http://www.w3.org/2002/10/18-errata
>
>This is a concise summary, derived from the earlier (19 September) 
>proposal.  It is under review and open to comment, as part of the Process 
>Document review.  (Note.  A few individual comments from some of us QA 
>WG/IG people were too late to influence this new version.)
>
>-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 11:15:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT