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

Re: Exit Criteria (CR/PR) Interoperability report

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:56:51 -0500
Message-Id: <200202261956.OAA247997@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
At 10:47 AM 2002-02-26 , Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Al Gilman wrote:
>
>[sni[
>> 
>> Since people differ in whether they approach the topic with their mind
oriented
>> in a timeline view or a technology maturity view, we need to get the
integrated
>> product/process policy clear with language that touches on both views.
>> 
>> So, where it says
>> 
>> 
>>>>the development of conformance materials as part of their CR-exit and 
>>>>PR-entrance criteria."
>>>>
>> 
>> .. which is ambiguous as to whether the criteria for CR-exit and PR-entrance
>> are one and the same or different things, based on how one parses the
English
>> (which is ambiguous in this regard); it is yet better to say something
touching
>> both views but making the logic clear, such as
>> 
>> "...the development of materials providing clear evidence that their
>> PR-entrance criteria have been met, as required for a successful exit from
CR
>> status."  
>> 
>> It is, after all, possible to exit from CR without entering PR, by formally
>> abandoning the pursuit of the PR entrance criteria.  Or sending it back to
the
>> Working Group or a new Working Group to develop something against new
>> requirements, having discovered that the original charter was fatally
flawed. 
>> When a document fails to gain PR, it is not necessarily any failing of the
>> Working Group.  It can be the process working as it should.
>
>
>According to the Process Doc, it's not possible to exit CR without
>either entering WD or PR. There are no in-between states. All state
>changes are achieved through messages (in this case to the AC). You
>may have finished getting implementation experience, edited the
>CR document to prepare it for PR, talked to the Director about
>advancing to PR, and more, but until the Director sends a 
>state-change message to the AC, you are still in CR. At any phase,
>there is the "Abandon" option, in which case the spec should be
>published as a Note.
>

I am just trying to understand where this leaves the QA document.  I think I
missed a cycle.

Are you, Ian, comfortable with leaving "exit from CR" in the QA document as a
collloquialism we use to connect with people on their own terms; while the
document still makes clear that the defining role of the criteria against which
one is building a compliance record during CR is that they are the criteria
that have been set for entry into PR?

I am sorry if I fudged the process in the last paragraph above, but that may be
immaterial.  If Karl knows what he needs to do, I think we are done.  Is this
true?  Are we done?

Al

>- Ian
>
>
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)  
<http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
>  
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 14:56:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:58 GMT