"A week on the QA mailing list" requirements

Here you will find information to help authors who manage " a week on the QA mailing list" to organize their work.


Following a discussion on the management of the QA Webspace between Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Olivier Théreaux and Karl Dubost, it has been pointed out that it will interesting to have an overview on what's going on the QA mailing list (public archives of www-qa@w3.org). Some of the discussion have been done at the QA F2F meeting of March 1st, 2002, as well.

It will be interesting for people (journalist, web community as large, occasional readers) to have an abstract of what has been discussed on the mailing list. Per discussion, it has been decided that the review should occured every 2 weeks and to evaluate the utility of this review six months after its starting.


We propose to the QA IG to create a pool of volunteer people in charge of writing this overview on a bi-weekly basis (every 2 weeks), alternatively. The overview will be reviewed by a team member of the QA activity.

A week starts on monday (0h00 GMT) and finishes on sunday (24h00 GMT), 14 days later. The abstract must be written on the following monday and must be sent to the team contact before monday (24h00 time zone of the writer). The team contact will send it to the list after review to the www-qa@w3.org mailing-list and add a link to the QA home page to the review in the news section.

Why a team member for the review? In case of conflicts with regards to the discussion which has happened on the mailing list, the team contact is neutral and will fix the writings. It should not happen, and it will be done only in case of strong problems. The team contact will trust the writers of the week's overview. If the issue is broader than the QA field and is related to W3C, the Team contact must bring the issue to the W3C communication Team.

What happens if a writer is sick, unavailable, etc? The next on the list take his place, and the one who was unavailable replaces him the following week.

What to do when a topic is continued on several weeks? The writer starts his review on mail sent in the period determined by the overview, but may reference to the preceding overviews if needed.

How to write the review? The main arguments are presented on the topic with references to mails and persons if needed. Make short paragraphs with clear sentences. Avoid paragraphs more than 3 or 4 lines. Do not forget that the review will be read by person not necessary aware of the QA activity and not necessary specialist in this field. The goal of the review is to inform journalists, people who follow the QA activity from far away, and can help to extract materials for writing documents to precise points. It will help us to have an index pointing to interesting discussion. The review must be educative and clear.

How to write the review? (in practice) Start by using http://www.w3.org/QA,new to use the proper template. Fill the form, save the generated document. Write summaries of the threads, don't forget to provide pointers to the threads in the archive. When you're done, publish the issue by : · commiting the document to CVS; · updating the calendar; · updating the redirect in /QA/.htaccess for the latest issue; · send it for review to the moderator (and finally announce it to the www-qa list after review).


2002-03-15 Candidatures are open. The Review should start on April 15th.

The pool of three persons of the QA IG:

The team contact: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>


The calendar of "week in QA" articles has been set as follows:

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Created Date: 2002-02-19 by Karl Dubost
Last modified $Date: 2011/12/16 02:56:45 $ by $Author: gerald $

Copyright © 2000-2003 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.