Re: updated process workflow

Hi Christophe,

Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> 
> Hi Shadi,
> 
> At 11:28 27/03/2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2006/tests/process>
>>
>> While my action item was to update the review process document, I have 
>> a proposal to extend the workflow slightly in order to better 
>> accommodate for recording bugs and issues.
>>
>> Basically the only change is two new states that can be outcomes of 
>> step 5, the "Task Force Decision":
>>  - "Bug" refers to a minor problem with the test sample, for example 
>> an incorrect value in the metadata or similar. These bugs can be fixed 
>> by a reviewer and are then put out for another round of group review 
>> by means of an online strawpoll.
> 
> So "Bug" would become the input label for another step: either "5b" (or 
> another new number), or step 3, which would then have more "privileges" 
> for the reviewer.

Actually I was thinking of step 3 as you outline below. See below for
more comments on this.


>>  - "Issue" refers to a problem in the Technique (or other parts of 
>> WCAG 2.0) rather than in the test sample itself. The test sample is 
>> used to outline the issue which is documented in the Wiki and sent to 
>> the WCAG WG for their review.
> 
> This looks good to me.
> 
> What we haven't filled in yet is what happens after feedback from the 
> WCAG WG. My first thought is that the test samples goes back to step 3 
> (initial evaluation) to undergo a content review, and then goes through 
> the rest of the process again. However, I think we still have sufficient 
> time to think about this.

Yes, I strongly suggest we leave that open. Once WCAG WG start reviewing
the test samples and issues that we queued, then we can work out the
process with them.


> One thing to note about the process is that step 3 does not allow any 
> changes to the test sample. A reviewer can currently only propose 
> changes in the review (wiki page), which are then voted one, and only 
> implemented after consensus in the task force. (This would also apply to 
> feedback from the WCAG WG.)

My suggestion would be to describe changes by the reviewer (or it a
different TF participant) as an outcome of step 5. The changes are
recorded in the wiki and the process goes back again to step 3 (another
review is made, and the TF gets to re-review it again).

The difficult question will be to decide what "minor" is but I think we
should leave this to the TF facilitators to decide on an ad-hoc basis.


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 19:30:13 UTC