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 10:56:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3C39C534.2A23BF28@w3.org>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
CC: dd@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
Mark Skall wrote:
> >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).
> I guess I still need to understand why this is so.  This philosophy is
> already implied in the Process and Operational Guidelines with the phrase
> "nominally informative".
> Is the "not-required" philosophy our strategy, or is this imposed by the
> W3C process? 

This is not imposed by W3C Process.

> If it's the former, I would prefer to see much more
> discussion on this.  As a minimum, we should document this as an issue and
> resolve it. (As an aside, I think the Issues List needs to be expanded in
> general to include other more substantive issues (e.g., the decisions that
> were made about what actually ends up in the checkpoints should be itemized
> as issues with the  resolutions determined by consensus)).
> In any case, I see many reasons why requirements would be much more
> effective.  The only advantages to softening these to non-requirements seem
> to be political.
> >In any case, the QA Activity will need to get buy-in
> >from WGs,
> I certainly agree that buy-in is important and we should do everything we
> can to obtain that.  However, I think this issue is orthogonal to whether
> or not to make our processes requirements or not.  One can obtain buy-in
> and still make things requirements. In fact, I would say that obtaining
> buy-in is even more important if we are to impose things on the WGs.

Yes, I agree.

 - Ian
> Coming from a conformance background, I'm still disturbed by providing
> recommendations rather than requirements when the implications of not
> following our processes could have a catastrophic impact on
> interoperability and the quality of implementations.  If we believe what we
> say about the importance of our activity, and we don't require many of the
> things we're asking for, then, by our own admission, we are inviting disaster.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 10:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC