- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:56:51 -0500
- 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 UTC