W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Ops Guidelines Issue

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:25:57 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I have some thoughts now about how we could approach Issue #60.  I'll omit 
detail for now, and focus on the overview:


Guideline 1 and Guideline 2 are all stated in terms of "In Charter,...", so 
they are apparently only applicable to new groups.  But we say in 1.3, and 
I believe that it is our intent, that *all* groups have QA responsibility 
-- new WG, WG in progress on first Rec, WG finished first Rec and working 
on subsequent one.

If this latter principle were agreed, then we should reword Gd.1, Gd.2, and 
their checkpoints.  They would not say "In charter", but rather their 
wording would be applicable to all groups.  Then in two places we could say 
how it affects groups in various stages, and how the various WGs satisfy 
the checkpoint:

1.) in the descriptive prose following each guideline and checkpoint;

2.) and, in Ops-Extech we would distinguish and describe how WGs at 
different stages satisfy the checkpoint:  new groups, "In charter"; other 
groups ... (some other way, e.g., minuted resolution in face-to-face or 
teleconference, etc).

Underlying Issue

The real question that needs to be answered before we implement such a 
proposal is:  do we (QAWG) intend to assert that existing WGs have some QA 
responsibilities, i.e., are ultimately responsible for production and 
existence of test materials related to their standards?  Or do we, as now, 
intend to write prescriptions (re. commitment and resource allocation) only 
for new WGs and advise the rest to "review and consider incorporating 
...etc..." (current sec 1.3).  This might be a delicate question -- an 
existing WG may feel that, when its charter was approved, it had a contract 
for the scope of its work and required deliverables.

Any thoughts on this?


[issue#60] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x60

At 11:59 AM 4/15/02 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>QA Working Group --
>I have come up with an issue about the Ops Guidelines [1].
>Recently I have been looking at the QA aspects of SVG (while generating 
>content for Ops-Extech), and have been looking at some existing activities 
>that have published Recommendations (such as XML 1.0 and XSLT 1.0).
>Issue:  Checkpoints don't clearly address existing groups.
>In the introductory section 1.3, "Navigating..", we say:
>"This document is applicable to all Working Groups, including those that 
>are being rechartered or already exist. Working Groups may already be 
>doing some of these activities and should review the document and in so 
>far as possible incorporate principles and guidelines into their work"
>The first couple of guidelines -- QA responsibility, QA commitment, 
>resource allocation, etc -- are all written for new groups.  There is no 
>mention of how an existing group should make its commitment, the TS 
>responsibilities of a group that has published a Rec and has rechartered 
>or is rechartering.  For example:
>** in-progress towards Recommendation, but already chartered (e.g., XFORMS)?
>** done w/ a first Recommendation, but moving on to further work (e.g., 
>Imagine being a member of one of these groups and looking at the first 
>couple of Guidelines/Checkpoints.  What would you conclude about what you 
>should do?  I don't have a proposal yet, but one or more of the following 
>options might be appropriate:
>a.) reword the guidelines and checkpoints, or add new ones (i.e., there 
>would be "applicability" here -- some ckpts apply to new groups and some 
>to old groups).
>b.) add prose addressing "old groups"
>c.) add new/old criteria to Ops-Extech for pass/fail ("verdict criteria")
>I think this is important enough that we should take a little time, so 
>I'll log it as an issue, unless anyone objects.  (Btw, I'll have new, 
>substantially revised issues list out today.)
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020405/qaframe-ops
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 18:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:26 UTC