W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Personal review of QAF -- #2

From: by way of Lofton Henderson <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:59:10 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040226095831.050bb010@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

[QAWG -- 2 of 2 messages from Jeremy, replying to me, about processing of 
his issues...]


cc-ing qa@w3.org, the comments list.


Lofton Henderson wrote:


>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/02/JC-CR-comments#x15i8 .
>Any case, what I'm concerned about is the list of specific 
>process/pubrules violations.  We want to correct any such, where we can 
>understand and confirm the specific allegation.  But for a number (most?) 
>of them, there is no reference or explanation of what rule is being 
>broken.  It is going to be difficult to process these individual points 
>accurately.


Sorry that seems to be an oversight on my part.
Although really there are only a few different rules - a CR is a finished 
piece of work, comments must be formally addressed, TRs are published in TR 
space using a single directory per TR.


I note that your issue says you were using an older process document than 
the one I was comparing with.
i.e. I think you were using

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/

and I was comparing with

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/

hmmm ...

I will try and use a ref to the older document if I can find one.


4.8 was my opinion, if you disagree with this judgement I shall propose 
modifications to pubrules.

4.11

The rule I asserted is being avoided (rather than violated) is:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs

"A Candidate Recommendation is believed to meet the relevant requirements 
of the Working Group's charter and any accompanying requirements documents,"

The links to unfinished work, indicate that the WG did not believe that the 
requirements were met.

5.8

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/02/JC-CR-comments#x5.8

I do not believe that pubrules or the process document discusses this 
issue, but see 5.9.

5.9

Once again
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs

"A Candidate Recommendation is believed to meet the relevant requirements 
of the Working Group's charter and any accompanying requirements documents,"

normative dependencies on unfinished work indicate that the WG did not 
believe this.

5.11 ditto, with minor variation

6.1

WG Notes are only found in the more recent process doc

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#q71

[[
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate 
that work has ended on a particular topic.
]]

(hmm this is a new point - all your notes violate that clause - they are 
still to be finished and hence should be WDs? This might be an unclarity in 
the process doc)

I was thinking more of

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html#links
[[
    1. If the document is compound (i.e., if it consists of more than one 
file), all the files MUST be under a directory (whether in /TR/YYYY/ space 
or Submission space)
]]
similarly
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/27-pubrules.html#links


6.2 not only is the note in the wrong place, but the files are not in a 
single directory used solely for that purpose, hence it is unclear where 
the note ends and other things begin

6.3
is part of a note and has a broken link, violating pubrules, same ref point 2
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/27-pubrules.html#links

6.4 appears to be duplicate of 6.1 (6.1 I found it difficult, 6.4 it 
violate the rules)

8.1 You have a chartered commitment to AAA reiterated in LC-13 presumably 
seen by the commentator. However in the CR version you only claim AA 
conformance, both violating my favourite:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs

"A Candidate Recommendation is believed to meet the relevant requirements 
of the Working Group's charter and any accompanying requirements documents,"


and also potentially violating
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR

[[
* the Working Group has formally addressed all issues raised during the 
Last Call review period (possibly modifying the technical report);
]]

since the response to the commentator was untrue.

8.2 I believe you probably met all the formal requirements here, but a few 
more links would have made it much easier to see whether or not you had.

8.3
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR
[[
* the Working Group has formally addressed all issues raised during the 
Last Call review period (possibly modifying the technical report);
]]
You chose not to formally address the comment since you believed it to be 
non-substantive, that decision is not granted to you under the process doc. 
You still were required to seek the commentators assent to that 
classification, which you did not do. Your words were: "Your reply is ... 
not required.".

8.4 same point, but more minor since the comment was clearly incorrect

8.5 This is only clearly a violation of more recent process document
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#doc-reviews

11.2 This is just a breach of quality not process doc.
I am surprised it still isn't fixed.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FQA%2F2003%2F08%2Fcss3-ui-qa

I personally think it is setting a very bad example when the QAWG of the 
W3C uses the valid XHTML sticker on invalid pages.

11.3 ditto (I've not checked whether it's been fixed or not).
11.4 ditto

13.1 See 8.1 - I am not sure what you do claim in terms of conformance with 
QAF, but it is certainly less than your charter commitment.



























Concerning issue 8.5,
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 11:56:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT