Comments on Framework INTRO (jan 18)

The following are my comments and suggestions for the Framework 
Introduction, (18 Jan 2002)

1.  Section1.2 - 4th para, last few sentences
Replace "And even those WGs which have..." to the end of the paragaph. 
Since, not really re-inventing their processes, they are starting from 
scratch, but reinventing what others have already done. Suggest::
Moreover, these efforts are distributed throughout W3C, making it difficult 
or at least time consuming for WGs pursuing their QA goals to find and take 
advantage of what has already been done.  Each WG has started from scratch, 
researching the numerous existing TS activities and defining their own 
processes, operational framework and technical deliverables.

2.  Section 3.1
Reword, so that all bullets are ‘parallel’
·       Working Groups at all stages of maturity, ranging from newly 
created (i.e., just chartered), to mature, to extended (i.e., re-chartered);
·       Specifications at all stages of document progression (i.e., Process 
REC-Track), ranging from First Working Draft through REC, post-REC errata 
processing and subsequent edition publication;
·       Conformance test materials of all types (i.e., described in 
[TAXONOMY]), ranging from content validators to test suites and tools for 
products, interfaces, and APIs;
·       QA Experience in developing test materials, ranging from minimal to 
significant;
·       Resources for developing test materials, ranging from insufficient 
staffing levels to staffing levels commensurate for the QA delverables;
·       Venue for Development of test materials, ranging from intra-WG 
development to combination of WG and external organization to external 
organization development of complete test material.

3.      Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph
Remove.  This info is unstable (i.e., will be changing) and should be in 
the Status section. (that is how its done in WAI Guidelines)

4.      Sections 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5 should all be written in the 
same manner (parallel structure and info)  For example:  structure each to 
address (1) target audience, (2) objective (taken from document’s abstract 
or intro) and brief list of topics in the document, (3) when and why read 
this document.  Additionally, the bullet list of what each document covers 
should also be ‘parallel’ in their depth and breath.

5.      Section 3.4.3 Suggest changes:
“This document is primarily targeted to people explicitly involved in QA 
activities.  This includes both those within the W3C Working Groups (as 
mentioned in the previous section) as well as others from organizations 
external to the W3C involved in developing test materials.

The goal of this document is to present procedural and operational 
guidelines for groups undertaking conformance materials development.  The 
document contains information about:
·       Process considerations and tasks for incorporating QA related 
activities within the Working Group
·       Operational activities for building conformance test suites and tools
·       Resource considerations for staffing QA effort
·       Interaction between WGs and QA Activity and between WGs and 
external organizations developing conformance materials
·       IPR issues

Supplementing the Process and Operational Guideline is a companion 
document, Technique and Examples.  The Process and Operational Technique 
and Examples document provides examples and pointer to existing QA work, 
illustrating the principles and guidelines set forth in the Process and 
Operational Guideline.

These documents should be considered required reading for anyone involved 
in launching, taking over, or maintaining QA-related work.

6.  Actually, reading Section 4, I’m thinking that some of the above 
belongs in Section 4  in particular, the (#2) target audience and (#3) when 
and why read this document.  Right now, the sections are somewhat redundant

7.      Section 4.1.3, 1st para  I’m confused as to what this says. Can you 
clarify this.


--Lynne