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

Re: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:40:14 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030513123342.01ea4180@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
At 08:06 AM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>[...]
>Cp2.3. Request allocation of QA resources to the Working Group. [Priority 1]
>
>I d suggest downgrading this one to Pri2.
>
>Rationale:
>This may not be implementable/manageable for Working Groups of too small 
>and too large size(XMLP).
>In some cases W3C has to impose a limitation on the number of participants 
>in the WG.

Clarification please?

Can you give examples where W3C has imposed limits, or point me to 
something in the W3C Process document?  I have heard talk about a de facto 
limit of 2-people-per-company on WGs, but I don't know where it comes from.

In any case, you're argument boils down to:  if there were a limit on WG 
size, then we should allow the WG throw out the QA staffing?  Or actually, 
to throw out the *request* for dedicated QA specialists?  (Remember, this 
is about asking for QA specialists in the Call for Participation.)

I don't like it. I think P1 is appropriate.

-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 14:37:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT