- From: <David_Marston@lotus.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:02:34 -0500
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Responding to Daniel D: >There is mention ... [of] thinking long terms about reorganizing W3C >with a more "horizontal domain" of activity, maybe with a QA larger >hat this time. That could tend to slow down the issuance of Recommendations. Some will say that slowing down is good, while others will dislike the extra burdens. The debate should rage elsewhere, though. >>...we must not foster the thought that quality is applied by an external >>force after the WG creates a draft or CR; the WG itself is responsible >>for doing their work under the guidance of this Framework and other >>statements about quality. >not sure what you mean but QA is clearly charter to improve the >documents W3C produces, not just the implementation people produces >out of these documents. I just meant that the existence of a QA WG and IG does not allow the Rec-track WGs to externalize their quality concerns. While adding this QA Activity, we also want WGs to add Quality experts to their own membership, and every member of every WG should feel responsible for quality. Improving the documents coming from the Rec-track WGs is certainly my #1 hope for the QA WG! .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 07:04:50 UTC