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

Re: Fwd: Re: Issue #22

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:11:34 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "lynne rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, ij@w3.org

You wrote, about Issue #22, [1]:

At 03:12 PM 1/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>Yes - the Intro needs to be modified.  The only suggested bullet I agree 
>>with is to include something regarding the Interdependencies between the 
>>QA Activity and WGs and perhaps the QA Activity and external quality 
>>activities.  I don't think this document should describe the QA Activity 
>>- i.e., its scope, deliverables, or even an overview of the 
>>Activity.  This Framework document: INTRO should focus on the Framework 
>>family of documents - providing the intro to these documents, overview, 
>>scope, roadmap, rationale for having these documents, etc.  In the course 
>>of doing this, it would be necessary to talk somewhat about the QA 
>>Activity, but not have it as a central theme of the Intro.

Ian expressed a similar thought in [2].

In both cases, the suggestion is to narrow the scope of the Introduction, 
by removing Chapter 2 (Survey of QA Resources) to the Web site.  The 
original issue 22 suggested broadening the scope.  I'll update the issue to 
include the new options.

But what it seems to reduce to is:  Should the Introduction be an 
introduction to the Framework documents alone?  Or, to the QA Activity as 
well?  Or, what you suggest above is Framework Introduction, plus possibly 
defining interdependencies between QA Activity on the one hand, and both 
W3C-internal groups and external quality-oriented groups on the other hand.

I have been writing the Intro based on Brussels decisions, see minutes [3] 
(below, Framework = Introduction):

Framework (FPWD: Dec-2001, Priority #1)
           Pointer to QA Resources
           Process (Organization)

We subsequently moved the last item to Procs&Ops (and matched the two 
FPWDs).  But the 2nd-to-last item is Chapter 2.  Perhaps I misinterpreted 
the Brussels decision?

I will think more on it, but I don't have a real strong preference 
now.  Two observations:

1. Ian makes the good point that Chapter 2 is a snapshot, and the resource 
collection will change.  If the decision is to keep Ch.2 in the 
Introduction, then it would have some caveat, and I would suggest that an 
up-to-date version of it be kept *also* on the Web site (and pointed or 
mentioned from Ch.2).

2. It seems odd to have "Interdependencies" included in the Introduction, 
if everything else is only about the rest of the Framework documents.  On 
the other hand, it doesn't quite belong in Procs&Ops (this is about QA 
within the WGs).  It is definitely something that we have to address and 
define.  But where does it belong?  (In a sense, this is part of our QAWG 
process document, which doesn't really exist, tho' Olivier's initial 
logistics document has some similarities).

I'm interested to hear some more opinions.


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x22, Issues 
document--issue #22:
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Jan/0001.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/2001/11/13-QA-Bruxelles.html

Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 00:13:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:25 UTC