- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:55:38 -0700
- To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 03:43 PM 12/3/02 -0800, you wrote: >Thanks Lofton. I agreed and sent confirmation (individual) earlier >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Dec/0000.html . > >Do you think we need a more formal QA WG response? No. My suggestion was only so that we would be "by the book" wrt QAWG process -- i.e., give QAWG members a chance to object to proposed response. Since you appropriately replied as "individual", it doesn't matter. My suggestion was in case that you had not replied yet. >I BTW agree introducing more process into our LC reviews is the way to >go - Yes. In addition to process, IMO the more pressing issue is: how to assist *more* WGs at LC stage. We (QAWG) are only infrequently invited to review LC (which is probably good, given our small resources). "Manditoriness" would transfer the burden of the review to the WG that owns the LC, with QAWG perhaps in a consultative role. -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 19:54:32 UTC