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

Re: Outline of Boston presentation

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:12:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3E541D8B.4020109@sun.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I like it. The original version was basically just words lifted from the 
documents, and the writing style was less appropriate for a presentation.

By the way, since I missed the second half of the discussion, I would 
appreciate seeing a draft of the minutes.


Lofton Henderson wrote:

> Patrick et al,
> I have some suggestions about the OpsGL slide.  While my suggestion 
> doesn't change what it basically says, it does change the style 
> somewhat.  You may prefer the old style, but having edited on OpsGL so 
> much (too much!), I think it's refreshing to see some different words 
> for a change.
> By the way, this is in the context of our decision at Tuesday telecon, 
> to move this slide to last (or near last), so that we can end with 
> some immediately actionable "punch".
> Current
> -----
> At 12:54 PM 2/17/03 -0800, Patrick Curran wrote:
>> [...]
>> * Operations Guidelines (think QA)
>>   Appoint a QA lead
>>   Integrate QA into Working Group activities
>>   Define and allocate resources for QA activities
>>   Synchronize QA activities with the specification milestones
>>   Define the QA process
>>   Plan for development, publication, maintenance of test materials
> Proposed revision
> -----
> (see styling notes after outline).
> * Operations Guidelines (think QA)
> Appoint a QA lead
> INTEGRATE IT -- commit to QA goals and scenario.
> STAFF IT -- assess and assign appropriate staffing
> COORDINATE IT -- synchronize QA and specification deliverables
> PLAN IT -- the process for development, publication, maintenance
> MAKE IT EASY -- use OpsGL's @@charter template@@ and @@process template@@
> About styling.  I don't advocate upper-case.  But some styling to 
> emphasize the words that I have put in upper case.  In the last slide, 
> the "@@" bracketed phrases would link to those templates.
> As I said, this is really a matter of style.  You could use the 
> current words on the slide, and talk the latter words.  Or use the 
> proposed words on the slide and talk the current words (or some 
> hybrid).  My own preference is for the latter. Opinions?
> Also, I'm sure the words can be improved.  This was a quick draft.
> More later (about feedback slide),
> -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:13:33 UTC

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