W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: OpsGL progress & question

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:22:44 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think the rationale is desirable and should be included to tell the 
reader why we have the checkpoint.  However, there are some checkpoints for 
which the reason they are there is obvious and a rationale added nothing 
(no new information).  In these cases, I rather not have the rationale.


At 02:47 PM 1/21/2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>QAWG participants --
>We can handle this by email, rather than taking meeting time.  But I'd 
>appreciate your feedback sooner, rather than later, if you are willing to 
>At [1] is an editor-draft of OpsGL.  It contains all of the substantive 
>issue resolutions (see the Change History), for example the new commitment 
>table.  I'm in progress with the resolution to add "Rationale" to the 
>checkpoints.  It is slower going than I expected.  I have done GL2 through 
>part of GL5, and a couple bits of GL6.
>Question:  Do we need a rationale for every checkpoint?
>         a.) Yes (before LC)?
>         b.) Desirable but not necessary (before LC)?
>         c.) No, not even desirable?
>If your answer is #b or #c, perhaps you would be willing to provide a 
>little more input -- which CPs ought to have Rationale, that currently do 
>not?  (If your answer was #c, which CPs ought NOT to have a rationale?)
>Any other comments are welcome, also (implementation of any issues, 
>wording of any Rationale, etc).
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-ops-20030120.html
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 07:31:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC