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

Re: Suggested schedule for Boston Outreach

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:31:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3E470EEA.50404@sun.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Good summary - good ideas. Talk to you tomorrow...

Lofton Henderson wrote:

> 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)
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 22:07:26 GMT

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