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

Re: Proposed 6/27 (Thurs) telcon agenda

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:51:05 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625163039.03aaa700@rockynet.com>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 06:25 PM 6/25/02 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:
>I looked at the assignments matrix [2] and I don't think it reflects what 
>we decided at Montreal and what's cited in the minutes.
>
> From the minutes: "It was agreed that the best way to get this 
> accomplished is for each wg member do a case study, then an enumeration 
> of techniques that satisfy the checkpoints, for one of our documents 
> (rather than case studies for three documents)."

I didn't notice this in the minutes -- I think its inaccurate.  As I 
remember it, we did decide to do one "exercise" for each of the three, Ops, 
Spec, Test.  "Exercise" consisted of a case study *plus* an enumeration.

The reason I remember it this way:  the initial motivation was two-fold -- 
to give each WG member direct experience using the GL; and to generate case 
studies for content for the Extech parts.


>In other words we decided NOT to do case studies for all three documents, 
>but to only do case studies for one document, but in addition, to do an 
>enumeration of techniques that satisfy the checkpoints for that document.

There are two problems with doing both bits on only one document:  with the 
number of QAWG members, we don't get much content to help build the Extech; 
and, it doesn't help with the primary motivation of getting thoughtful 
exposure of the QAWG people to what's actually in *each* of our GL documents.

The downside is:  more work for QAWG members.  But this is a matter of 4 
hours per document for a case study, from my experience.  Probably double 
that for adding a techniques enumeration.  And that would (for most people) 
be spread over the next 3-5 months.


>If you recall, the intent was to be able to deliver Examples and 
>Techniques documents that reflect the correct way to adhere to the 
>guidelines rather than examples of how it has been done.

Rather than replace the case studies, I thought we were agreeing to *add* 
the techniques to the case studies -- option #2 of Issue 67 [1].  It could 
be, in a future refined version, that we might reduce or consolidate the 
case stufy stuff.


>Right now the matrix says "each member of the QA Working Group has to 
>review a working group using the QA Ops Guidelines, a specification using 
>the QA Spec Guidelines (once it's ready for real use), and a test suite 
>using the (to be published) QA Tests Guidelines."

>Thus, 1) it doesn't mention the enumeration of techniques exercise and 2) 
>it still refers to three guidelines, rather than one.

We can sort it out on Thursday.

-Lofton.

>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x67
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 18:49:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT