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

Re: Last call - form

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:16:14 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030127075922.027cf520@rockynet.com>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Olivier,

This looks very good so far!

Thanks, and I'll re-issue an UPDATED agenda with this linked.

I have a couple of questions and comments, embedded below...

At 05:10 PM 1/27/03 +0900, you wrote:

>QAWG,
>
>On Monday, Jan 27, 2003, at 15:30 Asia/Tokyo, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>>I'm working today (a week late - my apologies) on the LC form.
>
>Here we go:
>
>http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/02/LC/ is the placeholder for LC.
>http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/02/LC/Ops has the form for Ops
>http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/02/LC/Spec (guess!)

What should we do about "QA Framework:  Introduction"?  On the one hand, it 
is ready to go to LC also.  On the other hand ... it has been in the back 
of my mind for a while, that it is a little different from the GL -- it has 
no conformance requirements (so ... should it be "Note" instead of "WD"?)

Whether we eventually address the latter or not, I suggest that the Intro 
needs to be published concurrently with the GL documents.  We can either 
add a form with it, or lump it together with another GL document, or 
informally ask for feedback on it (without a form).

Thoughts?


>Comments on the forms welcome, you can test the system as you wish,

There is a field, "This comment applies to:", which apparently contains TOC 
entries (yes?  or is it intended to contain CPx.y statements?  or both?).

To clarify then -- this means that someone who wants to make 28 comments 
about SpecGL, for example, needs to initiate the form 28 times?  Or ... 
could we accept an aggregate submission and then we assign a WG/IG member 
to hit the form 28 times?

>it will only spam *me* with your comments for the moment. :)
>
>>I need :
>>         - the outline of both documents

Do you mean the TOC?  Or TOC + listing of all GL/CP (1-line version, sort 
of like checklists).

>>         - to know whether we will use www-qa as the list for LC public 
>> comments

I suggest "yes".

>>         - to know whether we will use the issues list only or whether we 
>> will have  a "homepage" for the LC. I suggest we use /QA/2003/02/LC 
>> (that's where the forms are)

That suggestion is fine with me.  I see that WAI has done similar things -- 
LC review comments are segregated and dealt with altogether (I think it was 
UAAG where I saw this example).

We already have precedent to "short circuit" the Issues List -- Alex's 
batch of 25-30 comments.  We dealt with these off of the IL, but still in a 
well organized and deterministic way.  That was expedient. (There is some 
question now, what I should do to bring the Issues List up-to-date -- 
perhaps an aggregate pointer to the AR issue breakout, and the 
response/disposition document that we will generate.)

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 10:13:40 GMT

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