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

Resolved-to-closed: introduction

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:55:17 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030627173528.03d51b30@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

Recall what we have decided about LC issue processing:

1.) when we agree conceptually about the resolution of an issue, and if 
there are any GL document changes associated, it moves from Active to Resolved.

2.) editors draft the resolution into GL text.

3.) when we have had a chance to look at and confirm the draft GL text 
changes, it moves from Resolved to Closed.

We will NOT look at and discuss each change.  Confirmation will basically 
be a default "yes" process.  We will only discuss ones that someone has a 
problem with.

Detail.  The editors will send pointers to new text, in editors-copy of the 
GL document, to QAWG.  Ideally, the pointers will be from the issue itself 
in the LC issues list.  We will then have something like a week to raise an 
objection or issue.  Signal your objection in email to QAWG.  For the first 
teleconference after a week, there will be an item on the telecon 
agenda.  We will proclaim the issue(s) Closed if no one has objected.

Once "Closed", then our QAWGPD rules about closed issues take effect -- 
burden of proof on objector to justify why discussion should be re-opened 
-- so make sure you are happy with it.

#1 has been done for all OpsGL issues.  #2 is done for most.  I will send 
the first batch of Resolved-to-closed OpsGL soon.  The lc-issues list 
(updated today) [1] will point to the draft revised text in the OpsGL 
editors draft [2] for each issue.

Comments or questions?

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/06/qaframe-ops-20030623
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 19:55:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT