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

Re: Suggested schedule for Boston Outreach

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 11:48:56 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Others have expressed virtually every point that I would make.  See my 
comments after theirs...

At 02:10 PM 2/4/03 -0800, Patrick Curran wrote:

>[...]key messages are. For example:
>* A conformance test suite is as important as the specification
>* Incorporate QA requirements and practices into your work
>* It's easy to get started (but expensive to do a good job)
>* We have documents and guidelines to help you
>* Here they are (pointers)

At 08:36 AM 2/5/03 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mer 05/02/2003 ŗ 08:02, Olivier Thereaux a ťcrit :
> > I'm looking forward to seeing the other's points, but my apprach today
> > would be:
> >
> > * you can't afford to ignore QA
> > * analyse what conformance to your spec(s) means
> > * turn this into tests
> > * Do it. Now. Don't wait for LC, or CR, or whatever
> > * we can help [pointers...]
>Mine would be pretty similar:
>* cost/benefits of QA
>* integrate QA in your WG (OpsGl)
>* integrate QA in your spec (specGL)
>* coordinate with us, exchange your QA experiences with others

At 03:30 PM 2/5/03 -0500, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
>Patrick proposed:
> >From Karl's earlier draft [1], I would add:
>* Appoint a QA person to track what you do in this area
>Also, something like:
>* Three levels (A-AAA) of goodness exist
>* Test harness or automation may not be your burden

All good points.  I don't really have new ones (except see #4 below).  But 
I have some thoughts about emphasis.  Viewed from 30,000 feet, one can 
summarize the points above:

1.) points to sell the case for QA
2.) what we are doing in QA Activity to help them
3.) what we (QA) think they (WGs) should be doing

no one has mentioned,

4.) what do you (the WGs) want from us? (reviews, TTF, tools, consultancy, 
hard labor, to be left alone, etc)

My priorities/emphasis about others' points (above).  I think that we 
should be expecting a range of audiences, from just starting to deep into 
test suites.  For the former, spending some time on #1 is appropriate.  For 
the latter, it is "preaching to the choir", and emphasis might better shift 
to #3 and #4.

The points and perspective that I would favor for #3 are:

* Easy to start (appoint QA Moderator now; read Intro; OpsGL self-assess; 
SpecGL self-assess)
* 80/20 (or 90/10, or 70/30) rule: lots of benefit from initial easy steps 
(GL self-assess, basic test suite)
* OpsGL is simpler than it might look (Quick tips summary)
* SpecGL is simpler than it might look (Quick tips summary)

Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 13:46:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:30 UTC