W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Process Enforcement Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:28:25 -0700 (MST)
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0301150911360.18174-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Karl Dubost wrote:

> But there's an interesting comment here. How to ensure that all the
> public comments are taken into account

The solution already exists. It is called a "bug database" or "problem
report database" and can be implemented using free software like
bugzilla (http://bugzilla.org/). The system can be setup so that
anybody can submit a comment/bug/report and then see how WG reacts to
it. A WG does not have to respond to every bug report in detail, but
has to either assign/resolve a bug or mark it as "not bug", etc.,
specifying the reason for status change.

A simple query can show all "open" (not acknowledged) reports. This
can be used by report submitters and by WG to track open issues. There
can be many projects/categories within one database, which makes it
possible to have, say, a single database for all W3C WGs (Apache
developers use that model for all Apache projects).

There can be a procedure in place were WG is prohibited from going to
the next stage with a specification until all bug reports for that
specification are closed.

I do not know if all W3C WGs are the same as QA WG. Based on my
experience with QA WG alone, bugzilla is much better than the current
W3C practice/interface where all public comments vanish in mailing
list archives and then might appear on issues lists or might be
ignored, etc. without any accountability or tracking in place. The
situation with QA WG is not bad because there is virtually no public
involvement, but I bet other WGs receive more public comments.

On the other hand, WGs would have to spend more resources if they
decide to be more accountable to non-members. There is a clear
trade-off here.


                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:28:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:30 UTC