W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: a question about LC comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:10:46 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207064954.0312a630@rockynet.com>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 04:59 PM 2/7/2003 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:


>>[...]
>>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...

If someone is commenting on one issue (in a batch), and wants to refer to 
another issue, there is no convenient handle like "LC Issue #41".  It is a 
mild annoyance.

The other mild annoyance (for issues maintainers) is to correlate a mail 
thread whose root is an unnumbered but IG-archived issue, with the numbered 
version of the issue once it is merged into the list.  (We have, in the 
past, had a link in the latter to the former, and I don't see a way to do 
it automatically -- the IG archive pointer is not available at the time 
that you send the message to us, the issues maintainers, is it?)

I don't think these annoyances outweigh goodness factors (below) about 
whether to send directly to the IG list.


>>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.

True.  Only question here is:  WG or IG?

>[...]
>>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.

Good points.  I don't feel strongly either way.  If no one disagrees 
strongly with "send to IG", I propose that we do that.


>>("..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 ;)

Some people have made 25-30 comments at a time.  That translates to 25-30 
messages.  I myself will probably have ten comments.  I am not expecting 
very many high-volume commenters, but there will probably be a few.



>>(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...

Let's go your way.  It is better to do that, with the option to back off to 
summary list if it becomes problematic, than the other way around.

-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 09:15:46 GMT

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