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

Re: Comment on Fmwk:P&O, guideline 4

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:22:50 +0100
Message-Id: <p05101418b8a3a491aa60@[10.1.0.18]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Process/Staff.

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020201/qaframe-ops.html#b2ab3d147


At 10:45 -0500 2002-02-27, lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov wrote:
>Guideline 4.  Establish the QA Process
>QA process describes the responsibilities and functions needed to 
>enable the WG
>to produce QA materials.  The process should ensure that the work is
>accomplished in an open, consensus-based manner.  It should address the
>procedural issues, communication channels, and structure and staffing.

One of the major issue we have wrt to the allocation of staff in a 
Working Group, is that the QA resources often come as a second step.

It would be better if when the Team contact is writing the Activity 
Proposal or he's writing the charter of the WG, that the resources 
have to be allocated to the activity as a commitment like 
deliverables.

It means that if members wants to start such WG, they have to find 
someone or a several persons to create a QA pool. Does it seem 
reasonnable enough?
It could be the same for writing the spec and things like that.

You could imagine that in the charter of the WG, you find a table of 
the human resources needed to do the job and so that the WG can only 
start its job when the resources are found.

It seems to be stricter, but when you usually start a department in a 
company, you are trying to find all the people necessary to operate 
them.


-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 04:24:32 GMT

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