closing LC-57

On Monday, I want to move the few remaining OpsGL Resolved issues to Closed.

LC-57:  Chronological view of GL
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x57
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/07/qaframe-ops-20030711.html#chronological-view

On Monday, I particularly want to visit and talk about the chronology table.

I had a lot of trouble trying to put this together, and I think the result 
is less than optimal (maybe worse than omission!).  A couple of specific 
problems that I'm having:

1.)  Should "phase" refer specifically to spec-maturity stages?

2.) Also, for several of the GL, a couple of possible phases or times come 
to mind: the time at which the WG should address the GL (e.g., "Plan..."); 
and the time at which the result is applied (e.g., maintenance).  The topic 
of the GL (#8) is maintenance, which is applicable post-Rec and maybe even 
post-WG.  But the time at which the WG should pay attention and address the 
GL is earlier, of course.  Should the chronological view be one 
(applicable), or the other (address), or both?  "Both" could, e.g., be 
implemented by 2 sub-columns under "phase" -- "address" and "apply".

As I ponder these questions, I wonder

3.) Is a table is a mistake?  Perhaps instead we should have a graphic such 
as: horizontal shaded bands representing some set of phases, e.g., Charter, 
1st WD, 1st PWD, LC, CR, PR, Rec, post-Rec.  Each GL would be a vertical 
column, which would actually be a spanning vertical line or double-arrow, 
starting at where addressing the GL must happen, continuing/ending at where 
the GL applies (maybe w/ a gap). Kind of like a vertically-oriented Gantt 
chart.  Thoughts? Volunteers?

Regards,
-Lofton.

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 20:23:25 UTC