Re: Beta Criteria

Dates are great for applying pressure and forcing all of us to take the
work seriously, but I personally feel that ultimately we need to set
specific, concrete goals and then only change from alpha to beta (or
whatever the transition is) when we hit those.

I don't know exactly what those would be, but I'm personally more
interested in quality/comprehensiveness of content than other aspects.

Some random ideas:

   - Stubs (at least) for all non-proprietary DOM
   methods/properties/objects, CSS properties (... more?)
   - Complete, accurate compatibility tables on all CSS properties and DOM
   methods/properties on document,window, (... more?)
   - 50 localized articles (which implies we have a reasonable localization
   framework)

--Alex


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>wrote:

> NOT THE WIKI!  Tracking is hell in there.
>
> -Garbee
>
>
> On 12/14/2012 1:01 PM, Chris Mills wrote:
>
>> On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:20, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  * Where should we track this?
>>>
>>>  Wiki/bug genie?
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: RE: Agenda: Web Platform Stewards Telcon, 14 December
>>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:19:45 +0000
>>> From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
>>> To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
>>>
>>> Hi Doug.
>>>
>>> One thing I would like to talk about is what Beta looks like. What do we
>>> set the bar at for site performance, content completeness, community
>>> growth, internationalization, etc. If we have criteria for these, then we
>>> can estimate time until completion and therefore set a schedule. For each
>>> criteria, we can decide if we are firm or flexible in getting to beta, but
>>> without some specific goals, I am afraid that we're in a cycle of never
>>> ending ongoing work.
>>>
>>> E
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>