- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:59:19 +0900
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Friday, Feb 7, 2003, at 02:23 Asia/Tokyo, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> At 12:20 PM 2/6/03 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>> On Thursday, Feb 6, 2003, at 00:00 Asia/Tokyo, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Would you be happy if the form sent 3 mails (instead of 2 currently):
>> - thank you note to commenter
>> - issue to editor (in XML)
>> - issue (plain-text) to www-qa
>
> 1. the Issue doesn't have a number or mnemonic id yet (the number will
> be added by a merge process);
I don't see how it relates to the issue here...
> 2. too much volume of raw material for the IG list?
I'm not sure it's mandatory (I think it is for other stages of a spec's
life) but anyway it's much better that all comments go to a list.
> (Olivier, I think that you propose that the XML markup goes only to
> the LC Issues Editor, correct?)
Yes. In the charmod case the issue, both in plain text and XML, was
sent to the list. What I suggest is to send the XML version to you
only. I never thought we would not send the issue to the list.
> In some sense, I think a better solution is a periodic message to IG
> with a 1-line summary that is linked to the Issues List
I strongly disagree with this idea. I know how people would react, and
that is "so what, another reminder". The form is here to provide an
easy way to send a good, accurate and precise comment to the list, not
to replace the list completely as a channel for comments. What you
suggest would kill the discussions about the comments, which is one of
the main goals of the list.
> ("..oh boy, another 27 QA last call issues in my IN box").
You may be too optimistic about the amount of comments we'll get ;)
> (We can talk Monday as well -- our agenda isn't too overloaded yet.)
Yes, but monday is the start of the last call period, and I need some
time to code whatever decision we make...
--
Olivier
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 02:59:17 UTC