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

Re: Objection to not listing open issues when advancing to CR

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:27:29 +0100
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <200401191127.29943.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Karl:
> I'm not sure [that] [y]ou understand.

Neither am I (sure that I understand).

Clearly the force of my objection is reduced, possibly enough for me to remove 
it, if, as you prepare the test document for Last Call, you give adequate 
consideration to my comments on it, including comments that have wider scope 
than just the test document.

The section of the process document that I felt suggested I should object now 
rather than later was:
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#doc-reviews
7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities
[[
Reviewers SHOULD NOT expect that a Working Group will readily make substantive 
changes to a mature document. 
]]
My initial comments on the test document, which was a  "document 
is still in its infancy" [1]. Hence I feel in order expecting that the WG will 
readily make substantive changes to the QAF, including the ops and spec 
guidelines, in as much as my comments on the test guidelines suggest such 
changes.

To nail down one part of the process document which you seem to me to be 
abusing I would go for:

7.4.3 Call for Implementations

[[
Purpose: At this step, W3C believes the technical report is stable and 
appropriate for implementation. 
]]

this belief concerning the Ops and Spec GL seems somewhat shaky when you had 
open issues on the test guidelines. The failure to list those open issues on 
your issue list, have made it more difficult for the various reviewers of 
your request to advance to fairly evaluate whether that request was in order 
or not.

Jeremy

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jul/0020
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 05:48:43 GMT

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