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

OpsGL progress & question

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:47:26 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030121123353.037d75f0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG participants --

We can handle this by email, rather than taking meeting time.  But I'd 
appreciate your feedback sooner, rather than later, if you are willing to 
comment.

At [1] is an editor-draft of OpsGL.  It contains all of the substantive 
issue resolutions (see the Change History), for example the new commitment 
table.  I'm in progress with the resolution to add "Rationale" to the 
checkpoints.  It is slower going than I expected.  I have done GL2 through 
part of GL5, and a couple bits of GL6.

Question:  Do we need a rationale for every checkpoint?

	a.) Yes (before LC)?
	b.) Desirable but not necessary (before LC)?
	c.) No, not even desirable?

If your answer is #b or #c, perhaps you would be willing to provide a 
little more input -- which CPs ought to have Rationale, that currently do 
not?  (If your answer was #c, which CPs ought NOT to have a rationale?)

Any other comments are welcome, also (implementation of any issues, wording 
of any Rationale, etc).

Thanks,
-Lofton.


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-ops-20030120.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 14:45:31 GMT

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