W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2004

Objection to not formally addressing comment

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:40:22 +0000
Message-ID: <400805E6.9070103@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org


I formally object to the QAWG's failure to address a comment in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jul/0023.html

before advancing the QA Operational Guidelines and QA Specification 
Guidelines to Candidate Rec.

The comment being:
[[[
 > >>
 >> Checkpoint 4.1 is wrong and should be deleted. This is entirely out of
 >> scope for a W3C WG.
 > cf:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-wg/2003Apr/0002.html
(member only link)

On issue C035, Recommendations and W3C Policy

[[
    RESOLVED: Rec track documents can ...
]]
(Sorry since this is a public list I am not sure what I may or may not copy
from that member only message, you will need to go and look).
I believe it impacts all your documents.
I would be interested in continuing this part of the discussion on a member
only list e.g. w3c-archive
]]]

This was a comment on documents in last call review which was not addressed 
. It was not brought to the director's attention. It was not listed in the 
message to the chairs or in the message to the AC.

On reflection I have formally objected to the content of the related QAWG 
issue resolutions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0014

The failure to formally address my comments meant that I was not asked 
whether I objected.

I would be satisfied if the QAWG:
- found any other unaddressed comments on the Last Call documents (such as 
Dan Connolly's)
- ascertained whether these commentators are satisfied or not
- asked the directors to consider any formal objections, including my 
substantive objection (msg 0014).
- if the director upholds the WG resolutions, then to further draw the 
objection(s) to the attention of the chairs list, the AC list and any 
implementors of the CR documents.


I am open to hearing other process suggestions as to how to best patch up 
the problem.

Jeremy Carroll (personal comment not on behalf of HP)
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 10:40:34 GMT

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