Re: updated process workflow

Hi Shadi,

At 11:28 27/03/2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>Ref: <>
>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.

>  - "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.

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.)

Best regards,


Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group 
on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51 


Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 13:12:15 UTC