W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Framework documents nature

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:00:26 -0500
Message-ID: <3C39B80A.77E8611F@w3.org>
To: dd@w3.org
CC: www-qa@w3.org
Daniel Dardailler wrote:
> 
> Ian, I took an action item on the QAWG telecon the other day, which is
> to ask you, our W3C Process Master, how the series of documents in the
> QA Framework should be presented in terms of Note/WD status ?

> The WG goal for these documents is to deliver them as W3C Note.
> First, do you agree with this plan. 

> The Framework describes process
> oriented ideas, more than technologies per se. A W3C Note sitting on
> /TR is a way to make it a bit more formal in a sense, although this
> may be achieved otherwise. What do you think ?

I think that we almost never use Notes to specify processes.
For example:

 - The Process Document is public, but not a Note. It is 
   a Document (with authors, etc.) produced after lots of 
   review.
 - Pubrules is Member-confidential but not a Note.
 - Charters are not Notes.

I think that the deeper question is: how formal will the
QA requirements be on other W3C Working Groups? My understanding
so far is that the QA Activity will promote processes that
will improve specs, implementations, etc. but that these
processes will not be required (e.g., at the Process
Document level). In this case, I think the choice between
TR page publication and ordinary Web page should be based
on the expected frequency of changes.

If the QAWG expects some processes to be mandatory, then
whether Note or Web page is less important than formal
Member approval. For instance, "pubrules" is mentioned
in the Process Document, and the Comm Team has committed
to announcing all changes to the chairs. This is an
ordinary Web page with a particularly explicit change policy
attached to it.

In any case, the QA Activity will need to get buy-in
from WGs, and I think that in that effort, publication
as a Note may have a slight advantage over publication
as a Web page. The success of the buy-in campaign will
rely more on tools, education, joint-meetings, business
case documents, etc.

Advantages of publication:

 - Wider review likely (including from public).
 - TR page persistence policy.

> If a Note.
> Should the various drafts be called Draft Note, or just Working Draft?
> I think it's WD.

For a formal TR page publication (rather than a temporary 
internal QAWG draft), please use Working Draft.
 
> Should the css used be the W3C Note one (as now) or the WD one ?
> I sort of feel it should be WD, given the answer to the previous
> question.

The one for WDs.
 
 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 10:00:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:58 GMT