W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Activity/Charters comments

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:52:06 +0200
Message-Id: <200308291152.h7TBq7tS017501@zidane.inria.fr>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


> 1st:
> -----
> QAWG charter, Scope ([1]), 1st bullet.  We don't understand what the second 
> part of the bullet means:   "optionally can work on specification 
> improvement, but this is not a required deliverable".  Is this somehow 
> different from spec improvement that would result from the spec reviews of 
> the first part of the bullet?

I can't remember how this got in, but I don't see an issue with
removing it, being marked as option. So it's gone.
 
> 2nd:
> -----
> QAWG charter, Scope ([1]), last bullet:  " refinement of the a QAPD 
> ?"  We're unsure what "QAPD" refers to.  There are two possibilities, and I 
> think you probably mean #2 (that's what OpsGL would require of us):
> 
> 1.) QAWG's generic WG process document (QAWGPD).  We worked on this a bit 
> at Boston f2f, but never quite finished it.  Things like procedures for 
> raising issues, re-opening closed issues, etc.  Stuff that isn't otherwise 
> defined in W3C Process document.
> 
> 2.) QAWG's QA Process Document (QAWG-QAPD).  Peter and Patrick worked on 
> this at the end of Boston meeting and made a draft.  They started from 
> OpsGL's QAPD template, and generated lotsa good comments for improvements 
> to that.  They also raised the issue, "what are QAWG's test materials", 
> which we discussed at Crete.

Yes, I was thinking of the second, our QAPD.

> But when reading it, I started to have a problem, which confirms an 
> observation of Peter's:  it gets very tricky and confusing, talking about 
> "the QA of QA"  (or more precisely, the QA of QAWG).
> 
> In theory, we think we understand it well enough now to sort out the level 
> of recursion and comply with OpsGL's requirements that we have a QAPD.  But 
> in reality, it looks pretty worthless to anyone outside of QAWG, much less 
> to QAWG members.
> 
> That said, it doesn't look good to try to say, "it doesn't apply to us" -- 
> the immediate reply is, "eat your own dogfood".  Okay, we can do that.  But 
> after trying to read and understand QAWG-QAPD, and trying to sort out how 
> to improve it ... I think we should do it, and quitely bury it somewhere 
> obscure on our web site.  And it ought to have a Caveat at the start 
> (apologies if meta-QA is not simply understood.)

Fine with me, I'll add some details in the charter to make clear what
QAPD we're talking about.


I just updated http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/charter200307.html and if I
receive no further comments, I'll push it in the renewall pipeline
soon (agreement by W3C Management, then message to ac-member list and
call for participation).
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 07:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT