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

Re: Fwd: Re: Issue #22

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 07:29:52 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020107072358.03b81b50@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think that the Framework INTRO should be an intro to the Framework family 
of documents not to the QA Activity.  We don't need to justify or defend 
the Activity, that has already been done (resulting in the Activity) and 
that is what Chapt 2 sounds like to me.  I think that in writing the Intro, 
the mention of some of the Activities goals, actions, resources, etc.  will 
need to be included.  In particular Section 2.10 Technical Assets - should 
be included but perhaps at the end of Chapt 3.  I think it important to let 
people know that not only are we suggesting that they include the quality 
practices stated in the Framework documents, but the Activity will be 
providing some tools, templates, etc to help accomplish what we recommend.

Also, the document is confusing as to when it says "QA" and means the 
Activity vs.  Quality Assurance.

Lynne



At 12:11 AM 1/7/02, you wrote:
>Lynne,
>
>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)
>           Intro
>           Scope
>           Roadmap
>           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.
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[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 07:27:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:08 GMT