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

OpsGL Loose End -- CP4.5

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:05:01 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030516143019.025d2d10@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG --

Your discussion is needed to help close this one (the last currently in our 
queue).

At today's telecon, we closed everything that is currently on our list, 
except for one dangling bit about CP4.5.  At [2] you will see the WG-only 
draft (Thur, 5/15) that reflected the Proposed Resolution of issues around 
CP4.5.

The proposal at [2] incorporates:  agreed change from P1 to P2; and, 
clarify why this is an OpsGL/QAPD issue (and not solely a TestGL issue).

It is the 2nd point where it got sticky.  The reason is stated in the new 
text [2]:  decisions about the test framework have potentially significant 
impacts on staffing, processes, operations, logistics -- all of which are 
OpsGL turf.  Therefore we decided (in past discussion on this) that some 
attention to it belongs in OpsGL, while full treatment of course belongs in 
TestGL.

When we were discussing this at the end of the telecon, it looked 
interesting to roll the CP4.5 considerations into CP4.2 (staff the QA task 
force), and make 4.5 go away.  I.e., the Discussion of 4.2 could include 
something to the effect that TM framework potentially impacts staffing 
significantly, and this suggests that the framework design needs to be 
considered and its impacts factored in.

Subsequently, we realized that staffing is only a part of the ripple 
effects, even tho' a significant part.  So now we are thinking that we 
should keep checkpoint 4.5, and focus it a little better on what concerns 
us here:  the "..staffing, processes, operations, logistics.." impacts and 
effects of TM framework, hence the necessity to address a TM framework 
design at least sufficiently to understand what QA proc-ops requirements 
are generated.

In haste, here are a couple of ideas:

1.) For starters, we should  move the "how to develop, document and use the 
tests" words back into Discussion (or eliminate them);

2.) Then revise the ConfReq something like, "MUST define a framework for 
test materials development, and such definition MUST at least identify and 
define those aspects and details which impact staffing, processes, 
operations, logistics."

I realize that the wording could use a little work, but you get the idea -- 
focus the ConfReq (and Rationale and Discussion) on what we really want in 
OpsGL to get out of TM framework considerations.

This currently looks to be the most promising approach to consensus around 
this issue.

Comments?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/05/qaframe-ops-20030514#Ck-appoint-task-force
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/05/qaframe-ops-20030514#Ck-specify-TM-framework
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 17:05:06 GMT

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