Re: Exit Criteria (CR/PR) Interoperability report

At 10:01 AM 2002-02-25 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>
>KD: A word to add to the W3C glossary: Entrance Criteria and in the 
>definition, we may explain that we should not use exit criteria.
>

Make the binding more friendly.  Say "when people refer to exit criteria for Candidate Recommendation phase, they are generally referring to the criteria required for entry into Proposed Recommendation Status."

The point is that "CR-exit" should be treated as a colloquialism that is current in discussions, which we wish to capture and relate to the PR Entrance Criteria notion in the Process Document which should be used instead for precise work.  In the Glossary alone may not be sufficient.  This linkage may need to be expressed in the principal appearance of the notion in the body of the document as well as in the glossary.

[...]
>
>KD: To add to issues list for the QA WG. Remove CR-exit vocabulary.
>

See suggestion above for how to handle this.

Al

>
>>>Maybe we need a new checkpoint. Because it's one of the formal 
>>>thing written in the Process document but not yet clearly 
>>>explained. :)
>>
>>
>>IJ: I think it's explained very clearly. Read it without thinking 
>>about CR exit and I trust you will find that the process holds 
>>together. I don't think the description is currently broken, I think 
>>that people are used to talking about "exit" criteria even though 
>>the Process Document does not.
>
>
>KD: Ok. The process is clear on the notion of Entrance. There's still 
>a need for the checkpoint to explain how to do it. A checkpoint + 
>Techniques.
>
>Thanks Ian for your comments and to have pointed out the abuse on language.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
>           http://www.w3.org/QA/
>
>      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
>

Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 11:02:46 UTC