Re: Organisational Reminder

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
> 
> My two cents: I believe the original intent of the www-qa-wg/www-qa 
> setup was to mimic most WG IG/WG division; keeping some things WG only, 
> and communicating resolutions, calls for feedback and the like to the IG 
> (www-qa) list. On the other hand, WG lists are primarily used for agenda 
> items, minutes before published and the like, so Karl has a point.
> 
> I suppose what we could do is to keep topics on the www-qa-wg list as 
> close to logistics as possible, and have all general discussion on the 
> www-qa list (remembering that this entails an audience that may not be 
> entirely suited for all such topics.

This is a good summary, yes. And this is certainly the way things were
done in the beginning, before, probably, discussions about draft minutes
cause the actual discussion to be made in the WG list rather than the IG
one.

> What about using a third list and keep www-qa entirely public and 
> www-qa-wg "closed"? Something like www-qa-ig which would be along the 
> lines that Karl suggests?

What is the IG for? (checking the scope in the IG charter...)

Basically, three things:
- host discussion that will be used as material for the WG, review the
WG work, etc. 
- discuss and plan the (future of the) QA activity/ies : branding,
  certification, organization, practices, standardization.
- education and outreach

I don't think, however, that those three should be divided into three
channels. It made sense to create a list just for education and
outreach, because the target/audience was definitely not the same as the
"hardcore" QA people. But it doesn't make sense, IMHO, to separate the
"IG/WG interaction" and "Activity" things, because their audience is the
same, and because the traffic does not make it necessary.

-- 
Olivier

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 06:24:50 UTC