- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:12:54 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy, Le mardi, 9 sep 2003, à 09:03 America/Montreal, Jeremy Carroll a écrit : > Many (all?) of the QA documents intend to constrain other specs, WGs > etc > e.g. > > "A new or rechartering Working Group MUST define its QA commitment > level in > its Charter; " The issue is a bit different. We do not impose things here. We do NOT say "All W3C WGs MUST recharter and define its QA commitment...." You can read it like that. If a WG decides to apply the QA Framework, it will have to comply to certain things like modifying the charter. It means that it will be a choice of the WG itself or not. We believe in the self-assesment to QA, and we hope that the CR phase, which will start very soon for QA Ops Guidelines, will be a way to achieve that. If WGs want and are able to apply by themselves the QA Ops Guidelines, we will have a success. If it's too partial or not implemented at all, or with strong difficulties, it means we have a bad document, and we will have to work again. What we are asking now: "Just try and tell us." > While I do not believe it is in order to make a formal comment at the > moment, I will make this comment at the next appropriate opportunity. You are welcome to push your comments again. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 15:20:19 UTC