Re: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities

At 12:40 PM 5/13/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>At 08:06 AM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>>[...]
>>Cp2.3. Request allocation of QA resources to the Working Group. [Priority 1]
>>
>>I d suggest downgrading this one to Pri2.
>>
>>Rationale:
>>This may not be implementable/manageable for Working Groups of too small 
>>and too large size(XMLP).
>>In some cases W3C has to impose a limitation on the number of 
>>participants in the WG.
>
>Clarification please?
>
>Can you give examples where W3C has imposed limits, or point me to 
>something in the W3C Process document?  I have heard talk about a de facto 
>limit of 2-people-per-company on WGs, but I don't know where it comes from.


There was discussion about this at a prior AC meeting.  When discussing 
attracting more people to the QAWG Paul Cotton said it would violate W3C 
process to assign more than 2 people to a WG.




>In any case, you're argument boils down to:  if there were a limit on WG 
>size, then we should allow the WG throw out the QA staffing?  Or actually, 
>to throw out the *request* for dedicated QA specialists?  (Remember, this 
>is about asking for QA specialists in the Call for Participation.)
>
>I don't like it. I think P1 is appropriate.
>
>-Lofton.

****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************