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

RE: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 06:39:03 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030514063020.03fcd430@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
At 07:35 PM 5/13/2003 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

>Reducing to qa-wg list as this contains member-only links.
>I have 2 arguments:
>
>1. XMLP did have the limitation of 2 people per company. See charter [1], 
>Membership:
> > Each W3C Member organization is limited to at most one principal
>member and one alternate
>member of this Working Group.

This is the choice of the XMLP WG.  It is NOT W3C policy.  It is not in W3C 
Process document.

The XMLP WG made the decision at Charter time.  It could just as well have 
made another decision.  For example:  1 voting member, 1 optional 
alternate, 1 non-voting QA specialist.

>
>2. At the same time if every member would allocate a test resource, it 
>will create a mess in a large WG.
>I d suggest either to downgrade this checkpoint to P2 or reword it to say 
>that
>& participating members indicate what resources are allocated to QA work.
>but don t make it required for each member.

I'm confused, what is "required for each member"?  I don't see any words 
like that in the checkpoint.  The closest that I find in the checkpoint is 
" request that participating members allocate some staffing resources 
specifically for QA work".

This is very loose, and would allow the WG a lot of flexibility in what to 
do with the responses.  Suppose all 23 members of a WG replied, "yes, here 
is a QA specialist".  Well, the WG could then decide what to do with the 
offers, including selection of a subset to form the core of a QA Task Force 
(which e.g. could be non-voting).

I haven't heard anything yet to make me believe that this CP should be changed.

-Lofton.


>
>
>
>
>[1] 
><http://www.w3.org/2002/10/XML-Protocol-Charter.html#resources>http://www.w3.org/2002/10/XML-Protocol-Charter.html#resources
>
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2002OctDec/0008.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:39 PM
>To: Mark Skall
>Cc: www-qa@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities
>
>
>
>At 06:23 PM 5/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
>At 12:40 PM 5/13/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>At 08:06 AM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>
>[...]
>Cp2.3. Request allocation of QA resources to the Working Group. [Priority 1]
>
>I d suggest downgrading this one to Pri2.
>
>Rationale:
>This may not be implementable/manageable for Working Groups of too small 
>and too large size(XMLP).
>In some cases W3C has to impose a limitation on the number of participants 
>in the WG.
>
>
>Clarification please?
>
>Can you give examples where W3C has imposed limits, or point me to 
>something in the W3C Process document?  I have heard talk about a de facto 
>limit of 2-people-per-company on WGs, but I don't know where it comes from.
>
>
>There was discussion about this at a prior AC meeting.  When discussing 
>attracting more people to the QAWG Paul Cotton said it would violate W3C 
>process to assign more than 2 people to a WG.
>
>
>I don't think this is in the W3C Process.  I just did a quick scan.  I 
>found this quote in 4.2.2:  "* Each Member organization or group of 
>related Members must only be allowed one vote, even though each Member may 
>have several participants in the group."
>
>Even so, I wouldn't consider that a compelling argument to downgrade CP2.3 
>from P1 to P2.  Quoting CP2.3 ConfReq:
>
>"Conformance requirements: a new or rechartering Working Group MUST, in 
>its Call for Participation, request that participating members allocate 
>some staffing resources specifically for QA work. An existing Working 
>Group MAY make external appeal for QA-specific resources in one of various 
>other ways."
>
>Note "request" instead of "require".  Do we really think it is not 
>essential to start soliciting QA specialists when the WG is 
>forming?  (Experience in SVG:  every one joins to invent the cool things; 
>few to none have any interest in test suites, interop, etc.).  Another way 
>to look at it:
>
>P1:  critical/essential
>P2:  important/desirable
>
>Which fits?
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>
>>In any case, you're argument boils down to:  if there were a limit on WG 
>>size, then we should allow the WG throw out the QA staffing?  Or 
>>actually, to throw out the *request* for dedicated QA 
>>specialists?  (Remember, this is about asking for QA specialists in the 
>>Call for Participation.)
>>
>>I don't like it. I think P1 is appropriate.
>>
>>-Lofton.
>
>
>****************************************************************
>Mark Skall
>Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
>Information Technology Laboratory
>National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
>100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
>Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
>
>Voice: 301-975-3262
>Fax:   301-590-9174
>Email: skall@nist.gov
>****************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 08:45:30 GMT

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