Re: mis-classified LC issues?

Agree with assessment of comments and reclassification as OpsGL issues.



>Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
>
>Please reply asap if you disagree with any of these changes (or even if 
>you agree)...
>
>LC-56:
>-----
>
>I think this is not a SpecGL issue.  To me it looks like a TestGL issue, 
>although originator implies that it ought to be OpsGL.  I disagree with 
>that -- if TestGL makes policy about accessibility of test materials, then 
>it is naturally part of the QA Moderator's job to monitor that, and we 
>don't need to appoint a special person.  But we can argue that later.
>
>I suggest:  for now, reclassify as OpsGL.
>
>LC-83:
>-----
>
>In SpecGL context, it is hard to understand where the "seven" comes 
>from.  I think he's referring to the OpsGL table in CP1.1.
>
>Alternatives:
>
>1.) Keep as SpecGL issue
>2.) Convert to OpsGL issue
>3.) Both -- raise it for SpecGL and for OpsGL
>
>I suggest:  #2 (others have already queued OpsGL issues about the table in 
>CP1.1).
>
>LC-107
>-----
>
>This confirms that "seven" comes from GL1 of OpsGL.  One could consider 
>this also to be an OpsGL issue.  But...
>
>I suggest:  leave it as SpecGL, with cross-reference to reclassified 
>LC-83, plus LC-3, 60, 72.  Then we (QAWG) can argue and positively affirm 
>that we wish to keep the A, AA, AAA conformance levels.  (Note.  This has 
>actually been done several times in the past, and there is no new 
>information other than the conflict with the seven-level stuff in OpsGL, 
>which to me does not argue for changing the A[A[A]] scheme.)
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 11:17:50 UTC