W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: QAH outline

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:37:51 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1081849070.17227.175.camel@stratustier>
Le ven 09/04/2004 ŗ 19:53, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> The telecon minutes [1] left me a bit uncertain about what we
> decided.  I'll consider transferring (from Intro+OpsGL) use cases
> and/or usage scenarios in an intro section of QAH.  With it in front
> of us, it will be easier to decide -- move, leave, delete, change,
> etc.

OK, sounds like a good approach.

> > Also, I think it would be more appropriate to speak of "Test
> > Development
> > process" rather than the generic "QA" process, which will be too
> > fuzzy
> > for most of our readers.
> 
> I agree in principle.  But "Test Development process" is perhaps a
> little more limited than what we mean by "QA process".  (Or ... maybe
> not?) I have changed the generic "quality process" or "QA process" in
> a few places, but mostly I am flagging it in the draft and inviting
> specific suggestions.

OK, this will allow to spot whether or not we're talking about a generic
QA process or a more targeted one.

> > I would simplify the section by putting up front the few options
> > available to organize the test development effort, with links to
> > templates ; plus adding the pro/cons for each options, and
> > generalizing
> > a bit in the end to list the points a WG would need to address if it
> > were to build a new process from scratch.
> 
> I'm still confused about this one.  Can you give specifics in terms of
> what's in the outline [2] now?  

My point was that instead by starting upfront with all the possible
items that needs to be addressed in QAPD, we should just say that for
most groups, the QAPD template has all the relevant stuff, and then
saying "if you need a customized QAPD for some reasons, here are the
points it should address" ; 
by customized, I mean differing from the template one not in its details
[e.g. email address], but in its intents ; from what I understand, most
of the WGs QAPD are copy & paste from each other, which means that the
need to know about the details is probably not high.

But reading the way you've written the section, I'm not sure my comment
still applies...

> I would envision reorganizing it to parallel this (Day-to-day) section
> of the outline [2].  As I understand your minuted comments, you would
> recommend splitting QAPD into separate QAPD and TDPD?

No, not really ; although I'm not sure what my minuted comments mean now
:)

> Opinion.  I guess I like "all in one place" better.  I'd like to go to
> one document and find process stuff for general logistics (section),
> license & branding stuff (section), test dev't process and especially
> contrib-review process (section), versioning/maint (section).

Agreed.

> This is mostly invisible to me.  Do you have some references
> subsequent to the work we did with Joseph?  That ad hoc task group
> arrived at some consensus with some major participants like IBM, Sun,
> Microsoft.

I don't have the right references yet ; it'll probably have to wait till
a next version of the QAH, but that's definitely where it should be
documented. I'll try to see what I can get...

> I propose that we should point to the work we did with Joseph, as
> OpsGL currently does.  "Chose Document or Software License, consider
> applying it separately to different components of TM."

Hmm... I'm unsure... It may better to leave it empty for now, waiting
for the topic to be cleared out - there have subsequent discussions
which make me wonder if the results of the meeting in June is still
relevant. Sorry not to have better references yet...

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


Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 05:40:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT