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

OpsGL items for 11/25

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:24:25 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG participants --

Here is a plan for OpsGL questions and issues at 11/25 telecon.

Current WG version of OpsGL:

Last week I circulated a list of issues/questions about the published 
(20021108) OpsGL:

We discussed and resolved a few of those (see below).  To finish 
efficiently, I propose that we not discuss all of them.  Rather, I have 
divided them into two groups:

1.) need or want to discuss
2.) probably uncontroversial

I have proposed resolutions of group #2 items below, in "Batch 
resolutions".  Look at them, please.  We will NOT go through them 
one-by-one.  If you don't like the proposed resolution, bring it up in 
email (before) or at telecon.  If no one raises any issues, then the 
proposals are approved and won't be discussed.

Need Discussion/Input

(I want to visit these in telecon...)

CP1.1:  (NEW) 2-column table is problematic:  Might be "level-7" in one 
column, level-1 in another; might satisfy row5/col1 but not row3/col1  [LH 
has action item to work on this; will try to send proposal Thur. or Fri.]

GL4:  Who originally drafted this?  Can you please supply the two missing 

CP4.3:  I made an editing error (20021108 & ..1111 versions) -- I dropped 
the first bullet, which said, "*  QA Framework to be used for test 
development, documentation and use".  Question:  What is "QA 
Framework"?  Does this bullet mean anything different from or in addition 
to the sum of the other 5 bullets?  [Proposal:  No, it is okay to leave it 

CP4.3:  Must the QAPD (QA Process Document) be a public 
document?  [Proposal:  Yes].

CP4.6:  Does WG need to specify policy, whether or not branding is 
supported?  Or only define the branding policy, if branding is 
supported?  [Proposal.  The latter.  I.e., the WG does not need to mention 
branding at all if it is not supported in the WG's quality practices and/or 
test materials -- change the fulfillment criterion accordingly.]

CP5.3:  Who originally drafted this?  Can the originator of this text 
provide link(s), please?

CP6.2:  May need reworking after discussions with Legal.  Question.  Do we 
need to revisit Issue #49, after seeing initial exchanges with Joseph Reagle?

Batch o' resolutions:

(These proposed changes will NOT be visited in telecon unless someone wants 
to discuss any of them...)

CP1.1:  Get rid of "normative use cases" from table?  [Proposal:  Change to 
"...aims to have numerous examples and use cases in the Recommendation" -- 
because examples are P1 in SpecGL now, and user scenarios are P2].

CP4.1:  Move text to ET?  [Proposal:  Yes, but leave here a sentence 
indicating that there is a range of possibilities.]

CP4.4:  Any disagreement with "plus Web page"? [Proposal:  Keep "plus Web 
page" stipulation].

CP4.4:  How much detail, if any, about public vs. closed lists, multiple 
lists, etc?  Does it need to be a discussion list (i.e., read/write)? 
[Proposal:  "at least one publicly archived list for Working Group QA 
announcements, submission of public comments, etc."]

CP5.1:  Does the 2nd sentence of the discussion belong 
here?  [Proposal:  Delete it.]

CP6.1:  The last sentence doesn't belong -- it is about maintenance, not 
repository.  [Proposal:  reword it pertain to repository, and tie it into 
the "Discussion" so as to indicate that this is a part of satisfying the 
MUST requirements. Also, put something similar to original wording at the 
appropriate places in CP8.1 and/or CP8.2].

CP6.4:  Where is the disclaimer to be?  [Proposal:  leave it vague in 
OpsGL, just require that the disclaimer must be "prominently" (?) 
associated with the TM.  Address it in OpsET.]

CP6.5:  (1) Although "may" is in non-normative usage, is it the word we 
intend here?  And, (2) is "MAY" correct in the fulfillment 
criteria?  Proposal:  1.) reword 3rd sentence, "One way to address the 
problem is for the Working Group to encourage...";  2.) yes.]

Resolved 11/18

CP1.1:  Should we find another term, other than "QA 
level-n"?  [Resoln:  Leave it as is for now.]

CP2.3:  Should this be "not applicable" for existing working groups?  (The 
CP was originally aimed specifically at the Call for 
Participation.)  [Resoln: use "MAY" for existing WGs]

CP3.1:  Do we mean specifically the Rec-track spec stages? Or do we 
actually intend some flexibility with the "usually bound"?
[Resoln:  Reword all bits so it the scope is associating ...@@@...]

CP3.2:  Any disagreement with the "@@was 'if'" change?  [Resolution:  The 
change is agreed]

Editorial tasks

(No QAWG feedback needed now ...).

All CPx.y:  Next version needs to clean up "Discussion:" sections -- these 
are presently just catch-alls from the first-order restructuring of text 
for 20021108 publication.

CP4.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP5.4:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP7.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.1:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.2:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 18:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC