QA WG review through OpsGL

Greetings,

I've just completed my review of the QA WG through the OpsGL:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2003/02/qaframe-ops-qawg (linked from the
review matrix:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews )

The summary of this review is:
"Regarding how we as a WG pass the GL, we're currently in a very bad
shape, mainly due to the lack of our QA process document, and also by
lack of discussion on the topics recommended by the OpsGL: for instance,
we don't have a clear plan to build a test suite for our documents.

Regarding the OpsGL themselves, a clear issue that has been identified
earlier is about the implicit timeline in the document: most guidelines
are only applicable at some point in the WG's life, but the GL don't
identify this aspect: this is something that absolutely needs to be
stressed, and could even be used as a strategy to organize the GL as a
whole, e.g. what you need to do before starting a WG, what needs to be
done when you start developing a new spec, what needs to be done when
you envision building a test suite, etc.

Less generally, I think the document would be improved with:

    * a skeleton for a QA process document (probably as part part of the
ExTechs document)
    * cleaning the mandatoriness of the QA process document, i.e. a CP
should still apply in most cases without a QA Process Document [I think
I was one of those thinking it didn't matter because a Process Document
is a priority 1 requirement, but thinking to it again, it makes more
sense not add unnecessary dependencies].
    * the table of GL 1 should probably be removed and reworked as
suggested by Lynne recently
"

I'm unsure whether I need to open last call issues for the points I've
identified during this review.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org