Talk:ACT Review Process

Overall feedback (Detlev)

The whole document sounds pretty stern and not very inviting (if getting voluntary contributions from the community are a real aim).

Step 1: ACT Rule Creation

(Detlev):

• link "file naming conventions" from this text?
• Link to the relevant Github repository?
• It sounds pretty daunting to say "Contributors are responsible for ensuring that their contributions adhere to these requirements at all times" - if you want more rules, wouldn't it be good to have a more inviting approach - even a rule in pseudo code that does not adhere strictly to agreed format (which takes time to learn) would be a worthwhile contribution?

Step 4: ACT Rule Implementation

(Detlev):

I think "Implementation manifests" needs some explanation, may be a link to an explanation - I would not be sure what I would have to do if I considered referencing particular rules in our manual test procedure (manual testing is explicitly incuded as iplementation context).

Step 5: ACT Rule Maintenance

(Detlev):

I was a bit unsure whether the sentence "Implementations for ACT Rules may be added, modified, or removed at any time." applies to implementations of third parties (so saying 'do as you like, use what feels fit') or to some centrally maintained rule base at WAI.

Does the text need to say anything about implementers' scope for modifying rules in the way they are implemented in their tools or processes, or about any constraints on that, at least regarding claims that they 'use the ACT rule base' or similar?