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

RE: Ops Guidelines Issue

From: lynne rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 07:15:50 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020422071349.00a53fe8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
One way to do  this is to take out the "in the Charter" from the 
checkpoints - and at the end of that Guideline, the last 2 checkpoints 
are:  For new or rechartered WGs, put all this stuff in the Charter.  For 
existing WGs, make sure that it is documented in the minutes and/or via a 
separate WG document (e.g., Process document)


At 06:22 PM 4/21/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>At 04:45 PM 4/18/2002 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>>Thanks, Lofton,
>>
>> >do we intend to prescribe for existing WGs?
>>I agree that we need to give a roadmap of what to do for existing WGs.
>
>Yes, but I think that the tricky or sensitive point might be:  how 
>forcefully should the Framework present the Gd/Ck for existing 
>group?.  I'm thinking specifically about Ops guidelines 1 & 2, about 
>commitment and resources.
>
>> >The only difference is *how*, i.e., the technique.
>>Ok, I see your point. But for the existing groups it is hard to verify
>>if the checkpoints, since the "somehow" isn't deterministic and depends
>>on the circumstances...
>
>Actually, I think that we could state something deterministic for existing 
>groups.  I was using "somehow" as a placeholder.  For example, an existing 
>group could satisfy the Ops checkpoint 1.1 by discussing QA commitment in 
>teleconference and documenting the resolutions in archived minutes.
>
>The only tricky part of this is:  should these checkpoints hold existing 
>groups to the same level of commitment as new groups?  E.g., should 
>achieving priority 1 (Level A) conformance for existing group require 
>level-3 commitment, documented in minutes?
>
>I'm unsure of this detail now.
>
>>May be just having a section in examples document explaining how to
>>apply the checkpoints to existing WGs would suffice?
>
>That is what I had in mind, except I was also proposing to drop from the 
>statements of the checkpoints the phrase, "In the charter" (were you 
>thinking to keep it or drop it?).  Then Extech would say, "A new or 
>rechartering group must document the level-3 commitment in its 
>charter.  An existing group may satisfy this checkpoint in one of the 
>following ways [...this is yet tbd by us...].
>
>>And then we can
>>point to it from the Notes to the corresponding Checkpoints in the Gd1
>>and 2...
>
>We're going to have bi-directional links on *every* checkpoint, between 
>the OpsGuide document and the OpsExtech document, just like the WAI 
>standards.  (I'm planning some backward compatible extensions to our 
>framework document grammar and our transformation stylesheets that would 
>automate this.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:27 PM
>>To: Kirill Gavrylyuk; www-qa-wg@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Ops Guidelines Issue
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>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
>> >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 Monday, 22 April 2002 07:17:08 GMT

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