On Tuesday, Jan 28, 2003, at 00:16 Asia/Tokyo, Lofton Henderson wrote: > What should we do about "QA Framework: Introduction"? On the one > hand, it is ready to go to LC also. On the other hand ... it has been > in the back of my mind for a while, that it is a little different from > the GL -- it has no conformance requirements (so ... should it be > "Note" instead of "WD"?) I guess it would be decent to publish it as a NOTE, but we can keep it as a WD until we're happy with it. I don't think there's any rule against doing a last call WD and the proceeding to a NOTE. So, if we want comments on the intro... > Whether we eventually address the latter or not, I suggest that the > Intro needs to be published concurrently with the GL documents. We > can either add a form with it, or lump it together with another GL > document, or informally ask for feedback on it (without a form). Setting a form for it wouldn't be a problem. I'd be in favor to publish it at the same time, but as a standalone doc. > There is a field, "This comment applies to:", which apparently > contains TOC entries (yes? or is it intended to contain CPx.y > statements? or both?). That's an interesting, and open, question. It boils down to "what do we want comments on"? The document, section by section, or the guidelines, checkpoint by checkpoint. I suggest we choose either one way or another, but not both. > To clarify then -- this means that someone who wants to make 28 > comments about SpecGL, for example, needs to initiate the form 28 > times? Or ... could we accept an aggregate submission and then we > assign a WG/IG member to hit the form 28 times? The form makes it easy to send many comments one after the other (you can test... once it's finished sending one, it auto-fills fields and is ready for another commnent). But nothing prevents people from sending comments about the "overall document" and raise several issues. > Do you mean the TOC? Or TOC + listing of all GL/CP (1-line version, > sort of like checklists). See above. Either one or the other IMHO. >>> - to know whether we will use www-qa as the list for LC >>> public comments > I suggest "yes". Sounds good. Might be prudent to check if it's OK with the process. -- OlivierReceived on Monday, 27 January 2003 10:25:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC