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

Review Assignments final plan

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:39:56 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG members,

There has been zero feedback on the proposed review assignments plan 
(attached).  Therefore, we will assume that it is accepted and is now 

Action Item All:  sign up (email to Dom) by 7/24 telecon for at least an 
OpsGL review and a SpecGL review.

Please have a look at the revised review assignment page [1].  You will 
notice some changes:

** a little more explanation, and alignment with the final plan
** a couple more entries, and marking some "done".
** new skeletons, for both OpsGL and SpecGL

Please have a look at the latter and let me know any comments.  The format 
is generally enhanced, and it is closely back-linked (per checkpoint) to 
the GL document from which it was generated (by XSLT).


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews

>Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:09:53 -0600
>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: proposal on Review Assignments
>Resent-From: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-qa-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/626
>X-Loop: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-qa-wg.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-qa-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>QAWG --
>Please comment on this proposal for Review 
>Assignments.  Yes?  No?  Modify?  Please comment also on proposed sign up 
>date (7/27).
> From the minutes of today's telecon...
>At 11:56 AM 7/10/02 -0400, Karl wrote:
>>6.) Review assignments [2]
>>         [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews [Group Only]
>>LH We will do a case study wrt to the QA Framework
>>... each person will do 3 reviews in the next 6 months
>>... sandra does it seem reasonnable (you did XML)
>>SM it takes 2 hours in the morning
>>LH it seems reasonnable
>>... you look at the guidelines and checkpoints and tries to extract the 
>>Karl is asking for clarification
>>LH After the teleconf, I will write a clear proposal and detailed.
>>... we can discuss it on the list.
>>... and we can start to put names in a Matrix for assignments
>Okay, here is my clarification, and proposal.
>Background:  see [1], which is some discussion between Mark and I.  I 
>(probably) misunderstood Mark's proposal at Montreal.  In [1] I explain 
>why I don't think it is optimal, and outline the "3+1" modified proposal.
>Part 1:
>Each QAWG member will do three case studies over the next 4-6 months -- 
>one for OpsGL, plus one for SpecGL, plus one for TestGL.  You'll start 
>with a skeletonized version of the GL document that looks something like 
>[2].  You'll fill in comments about how the target (WG, spec, TS) relates 
>to the checkpoint.  (Note.  There will be a bit of summary front matter 
>for you to provide also, and a bit of per-checkpoint front matter -- the 
>final skeleton that you use will contain placeholders.)
>Those of us who have done them for OpsGL so far think that they will take 
>around 1/2 day each, on the average, if you pick a WG/spec/TS that you're 
>familiar with.
>The rationale is two-fold:
>1-1.) this is critical for us, QAWG, in order to develop good GL 
>documents.  We who did OpsGL found that some bits of OpsGL didn't work so 
>well when you tried to actually apply it.  Also, each QAWG member will 
>have a really thoughtful look at each GL part, which seems valuable to us 
>for quality GL development.
>1-2.) it generates ample raw material for the Extech parts.
>Part 2:
>Each QAWG member will do one "techniques analysis" over the next 4-6 
>months -- either one for OpsGL, or one for SpecGL, or one for TestGL.
>Rationale:  This will be the material from which we build the Extech 
>"Techniques" bits (which will still be complemented and supplemented by 
>some Case Studies [Examples] materials).
>2-1.) we need to moderate these "techniques analysis" assignments, to make 
>sure that we get even coverage of Ops, Spec, Test.  I.e., we want 2-3 
>members to cover each one, instead of 7 Ops, 2 Spec, 0 Test.
>2-2.) Timing.  We could use Ops now, e.g., before mid-August, so that we 
>could have a OpsExtech document cycle before Tokyo (and in any case, 
>before anticipated October publication of Frm parts).  Spec would be good 
>before, say, before Tokyo.  Test [...uncertain...]
>2-3.) Labor.  Unknown.  We haven't done it yet.  Likely more than a case 
>study.  I would expect the Lead Editor of the Extech part to be one of the 
>2-3 volunteers.  In fact, he/she could subdivide the ckeckpoints of the GL 
>part amongst the 2-3 volunteers, to reduce per-member labor requirement.
>Assuming QAWG approval of something like this, would it be reasonable to 
>request WG members to sign up by next telecon (7/27)?  Signup is handled 
>by sending a message to Dom, per [3].  For the case studies (Ex), I don't 
>see much constraint on what you choose (although duplication dilutes 
>rationale 1-2 above).  For techniques analysis (Tech), we may shuffle 
>people around a bit to even out the coverage.
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0065.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/06/ops-skeleton-sample.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0031.html
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 17:37:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC