W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Exit Criteria (CR/PR) Interoperability report

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:06 +0100
Message-Id: <p05101403b8a001197fb3@[]>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 15:29 +0100 2002-02-25, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>See my comments below preceded by "IJ:".
>Karl Dubost wrote:
>>[NotaBene: First surprising thing, there's no mention of Exit 
>>Criteria in the whole process document, but Entrance Criteria. 
>>Something to fix?]
>IJ: This is not a bug. The Process Document only talks about 
>entrance criteria for phase transitions. You never ask the Director 
>"Are we done with CR?", you ask the Director "Can I advance to PR?" 
>One of the things the Director looks at is whether there is 
>sufficient implementation experience for the specification. Since 
>WGs can skip CR entirely with sufficient implementation experience 
>(though maybe they shouldn't), then it makes more sense to talk 
>about PR entrance criteria.

KD: A word to add to the W3C glossary: Entrance Criteria and in the 
definition, we may explain that we should not use exit criteria.

>>"In an effort to meet these suggestions and address the 
>>implementation requirements of the Process Document, some Working 
>>Groups have included the development of conformance materials as 
>>part of their CR-exit and PR-entrance criteria."
>IJ: Please delete "CR-exit and" from this sentence. It adds 
>confusion if people think that CR-exit and PR-entrance are different 
>are essentially the same, but it's easier to model using entrance 

KD: To add to issues list for the QA WG. Remove CR-exit vocabulary.

>>Maybe we need a new checkpoint. Because it's one of the formal 
>>thing written in the Process document but not yet clearly 
>>explained. :)
>IJ: I think it's explained very clearly. Read it without thinking 
>about CR exit and I trust you will find that the process holds 
>together. I don't think the description is currently broken, I think 
>that people are used to talking about "exit" criteria even though 
>the Process Document does not.

KD: Ok. The process is clear on the notion of Entrance. There's still 
a need for the checkpoint to explain how to do it. A checkpoint + 

Thanks Ian for your comments and to have pointed out the abuse on language.

Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 10:09:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC