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

Re: [QA Ops] QA CR and WG charters

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:32:56 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030918092840.00b7d648@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I agree with Dom.   They don't have to revise their charter as long as they 
record the decisions.  Additionally, the CPs in OpsGL are things that we 
think are important and hope that they do as well.  I would hope that even 
if OpsGL went away in its entirety (and it won't), that a WG would want to 
implement the principles that it expounds - and if not, then that is what 
we want to know.

lynne


At 11:56 AM 9/18/2003 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mer 17/09/2003 ŗ 15:17, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> > A comment has been made by the OWL WG, which raises a fair enough
> > point. If they try to implement the QA Ops GL, they may have to modify
> > their charter to comply with the checkpoints:
> >       CP 1.1 Where it's explained in the Examples and Techniques. Amend a
> > charter for an existing WG.
> >       CP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 too.
>
>Err, amending the charter is only one of the techniques... The
>checkpoint speaks about "documenting its QA commitment level in some
>consensus record", and the E&T mentions recording the commitmemnt during
>a teleconference for instance.
>
> > - What's happening if they modify their charter to try the QA Framework
> > Ops GL and notice later on, that the CP has disappeared.
>
>The OpsGL won't change in the next 6 months! Again, if they don't feel
>confident in the stability of the opsGL (which are in CR and are thus
>supposed to be fairly stable), they can take the decision during a
>regular meeting, record it in their minutes, and come back to this at a
>later stage if they don't think that decision was beneficial.
>
>More generally, the real point is: if they take the decision without
>thinking it's beneficial for them, then there is a probably a bug in
>taking the decision at first...
>
> > - What's happening if they notice that they will engage themselves in a
> > process they don't want now.
>
>Well, they shouldn't get involved in it, then, and tell us why they
>don't want it now.
>
> > - Is there room for a thought experience during our CR phase. So WG
> > trying to do like if they were making it real, but not really. For
> > example write a mockup charter, like if they had to comply and report
> > what are the problems.
>
>I don't think that count as implementation. The charter is really not a
>requirement from the OpsGL, and we have spent a fair amount of time
>making sure it would not be.
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 09:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT