Re: Last call - form

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.

-- 
Olivier