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 17:26:36 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
We haven't addressed and answered the underlying issue yet -- do we intend 
to prescribe for existing WGs?  But for the sake of discussion, let's 
assume that the answer is "yes".

Gd.1 and Gd.2 contain 7 checkpoints.  The first 6 apply to all WGs, new 
groups and existing groups.  *What* they should do is the same (if you 
ignore the words "in the charter").  The only difference is *how*, i.e., 
the technique.  New group:  "In the charter".  Existing group:  "Somehow" 
(okay, "somehow" could be something like "Minuted resolution in a WG 
meeting", or "charter amendment", or ...).

Gd.7, by comparison, is only applicable to some WGs in some special 
circumstances -- externally developed TM which are to be transferred to the WG.

I think that it is more natural and more streamlined to differentiate 
new/existing in the "Techniques", than to replicate a handful of 
checkpoints that specify essentially the same "what-to-do", with slightly 
different wording for new/existing.


At 03:35 PM 4/18/02 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>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
>detail for now, and focus on the overview:
>Guideline 1 and Guideline 2 are all stated in terms of "In Charter,...",
>they are apparently only applicable to new groups.  But we say in 1.3,
>I believe that it is our intent, that *all* groups have QA
>-- new WG, WG in progress on first Rec, WG finished first Rec and
>on subsequent one.
>If this latter principle were agreed, then we should reword Gd.1, Gd.2,
>their checkpoints.  They would not say "In charter", but rather their
>wording would be applicable to all groups.  Then in two places we could
>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";
>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
>responsibilities, i.e., are ultimately responsible for production and
>existence of test materials related to their standards?  Or do we, as
>intend to write prescriptions (re. commitment and resource allocation)
>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
>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
> >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
> >mention of how an existing group should make its commitment, the TS
> >responsibilities of a group that has published a Rec and has
> >or is rechartering.  For example:
> >
> >** in-progress towards Recommendation, but already chartered (e.g.,
> >
> >** 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
> >should do?  I don't have a proposal yet, but one or more of the
> >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
> >to old groups).
> >b.) add prose addressing "old groups"
> >c.) add new/old criteria to Ops-Extech for pass/fail ("verdict
> >
> >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 19:26:29 UTC

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