Re: QA WG Response to SpecGL comments

On 2 September I submitted the following proposed change to the document 
(at a priority 2 or 3 level) this type of addition would satisfy my 
objection.    It seems to me that this type of checkpoint is needed to 
satisfy two of the scope requirements from the QA working group charter[1]:

A. Ensuring coordination with W3C Working Groups developing specifications 
(formal channel, appeal);

B. Coordinating works with internal W3C horizontal groups: WAI, I18N, TAG 
and Comm Team

1. Did you receive this proposal?

2. Has the QA working group discussed it?

========== Proposed Addition =============
Checkpoint 4.x Assign QA task force members liaison responsibilities to 
other W3C working groups with dependencies

Priority: 2 or 3

Rationale. As working groups become more numerous it is often difficult for 
working groups to communicate efficiently about their dependencies as 
specifications are developed.  Having a person responsible for insuring 
that other working group dependencies are represented and considered in the 
QA process of a specification helps insure the interoperability
  and compatibility of W3C specifications.  This is especially important 
for W3C horizontal groups: WAI and I18N.

Discussion. The QA team member with liason responsibilities to another 
working group(s) communicates information about the QA process of a 
specification to the working group or groups they have assigned 
responsibilities.  The communication includes soliciting comment on the 
specification, QA process and the encouraging contribution and review of 
test suite materials.

========== End Proposed Addition ===============



At 12:00 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:

>Dear Jon,
>Thank you for your comments on Last Call WD of "QA 
>Framework:  Specification Guidelines" (SpecGL).  This is QAWG's response.
>Your reply -- whether you accept or reject QAWG's disposition of your 
>comments -- is requested by September 26, 2003.  If you do not reply by 
>then, your default response is recorded as "Accept". If you need an 
>extended deadline to send your comments, please let us know as soon as 
>possible so that we can negotiate a new date.
>You will find QAWG's response to your comments in the "Disposition of 
>Comments" (DoC) document [1].  Please note that [1] is for Specification 
>Guidelines only. Operational Guidelines and Introduction specifications 
>are being handled separately.
>In the descriptive information before the table in [1], you will find a 
>complete description of the contents of the DoC table.
>If you do not accept QAWG's disposition of your comments, please provide 
>details, including:   your reasons; and, what changes to the dispositions 
>would be required to satisfy you.
>Please copy the QAWG list on your reply ( -- the Cc: of 
>this message).
>For Lofton Henderson (QAWG co-chair, for the QAWG),
>Dominique Hazael-Massieux, SpecGL Lead Editor
>More specifically, the responses to your comments start at:

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248



Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 10:42:09 UTC