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

Re: TestGL draft

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:00:12 +0300
Message-Id: <60318AEA-B893-11D8-B3AE-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>

Comments inline

On 7 Jun 2004, at 17:49, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>  At 12:59 AM 6/5/2004 +0300, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
> WG,
>  As promised during Wednesday's talk with Patrick, Lofton and Dom, 
> I've sent the document to Patrick for him to check.
>  From the record of that talk,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0006.html ,
>  [[
>  ** publish before f2f -- Friday 11th June at latest;
>  ** DD/PC send new draft to QAWG:  by Friday 4th June (A.M. Eastern 
> time);
>  ** QAWG review/discussion:  Monday, 14th June QAWG telecon.
>  ]]
>  I.e., the finished draft was to be circulated to the QAWG by Friday 
> morning (EDT).
>  Did I miss a message containing the draft?  (I.e., did it get 
> anti-spammed here, like some incoming HTML messages do?)
No, I missed the Friday deadline, so the difference is that the draft 
only got circulated today. Given some intense work pressure, I proposed 
that we look at the draft as is and collect comments for me to 
incorporate before the Friday publication.

> Please note that I have limited the work to the following:
>  1. No proper layout since I want to gather all feedback and update 
> the document before publication, thought I'd do the layout at the same 
> time (this includes introductory/concluding sections)
>  2. I've tried to incorporate as much as possible of the old 
> operational guidelines. Here I want to note that
>  (i) I think TestGL should not consist of that many operational 
> guidelines (I realise there is a spillover from the old OpsGL, but I 
> think they fit better in QAH)
>  You should bring this up as an issue.  By my recollection, we (QAWG) 
> actually decided on a specific set of items that were going into this 
> section.
On re-reading, I get the feeling that most pointers are 
process-specific. I basically want the document to not end up in the 
state it was before (February, say) when it was overloaded with process 
issues. Let's talk during telcon time.

> (ii) I think QAH and TestGL editors need to commonly decide what gets 
> put in QAH. Maybe we can do this before the next publication cycle.
>  I thought we already did so.  (But don't have any minutes pointers 
> handy right now.)
>  Other recollections?
>  -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 11:00:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:33 UTC