- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:32:22 -0600
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
I asked, "Actually, some groups even have non-public charters, after "release", don't they? Is HTML one of these?" From the draft charter, the answer is: "This charter is also public." -Lofton. >The new HTML WG Charter > http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/charter (Members only) >The answers to the received comments including QA > http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/issues (Team only) > >The access to this kind of document is an interesting problem for the >intended review :) > >In the interesting answers there were > >About Test Suites. > Q: Test suites "preferably before candidate recommendation" - not sure > that this is not yet a MUST > A: It's not a MUST according to the current Process Document. > >Which tend to confirm that there's a need for modification of the Process >Document if we want to enforce it as Dimitris has suggested. Note that I updated Issues #16 and #71, http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x16 http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x71 per Montreal and Dom's proposal. So (#71) we endorsed the manditoriness, but didn't yet define the mechanism. Dom mentioned for Ops GL maybe an addendum to Process Document, and for Spec GL maybe a requirement in pubrules. But we haven't yet endorsed a specific strategy to achieve the manditoriness. So #16 still says, "For now, QAWG will not propose any changes [to Process Document]." >About QA Section in the charter. >The HTML WG had decided to not hardcode in their charter a process which >is still half-cooked on our side (QA WG). It's why there's no precise >answers right now to the guidelines :) Half-cooked? For Ops GL, I think we must be at least "80%-cooked" by now! -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 17:30:29 UTC