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

RE: Ops Guidelines Issue

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:35:07 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F60414CA7B@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Why not to deal with this issue the same way we did for the Transfer of
the test suite from external party? (G7). In the Gd7 we just repeat the
applicable chkpt from the Gd1 and Gd2. 
We can insert 
Gd 3 Introduce QA into existing WG
and put there applicable reworded checkpoints from Gd1 and Gd2 - similar
to Gd 7.

What do you think?

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:26 PM
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ops Guidelines Issue


I have some thoughts now about how we could approach Issue #60.  I'll
omit 
detail for now, and focus on the overview:

Overview&Proposal
--------

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?

-Lofton.

[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.
>
>Description:
>
>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.,
>SVG, XSLT, XML)?
>
>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.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020405/qaframe-ops
>
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 18:36:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT