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

RE: P&O Document - Guideline 1

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:28:51 -0800
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F60414C148@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Lynne Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>
Let's discuss on the telecon, Lynne's proposal makes sense to me at
least. I'll send updated Gd 1 before telecon.

-----Original Message-----
From: lofton [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:56 AM
To: Lynne Rosenthal
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Subject: Re: P&O Document - Guideline 1

I think Lynne's proposal has a lot of merit.  Other opinions?  Is this
something that we should:

** do now (i.e., everyone likes it)?
** do never?
** postpone till after FPWD?
** discuss in WG telcon (1/28)?

-Lofton.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date:  Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:33:31 -0500

>My comments on Guideline 1 of the Framework: Process & Operational
Guidelines
>
>Given that Guidelines are informational and used to structure the 
>checkpoints in sets that define similar requirements and Checkpoints
are 
>normative; I propose an alternative Guideline 1.
>
>Currently the focus of Guideline 1 is the Charter and the inclusion of
QA 
>goals, criteria etc.   I propose an alternative that is, the focus of
the 
>first Guideline be the WG's plans and integration of QA activities and 
>deliverables into the WG.  This would include planning, identifying
goals, 
>deliverables, etc for conformance test materials, practices etc. It
would 
>also (as a checkpoint) include putting something in the Charter.  I
think 
>this would be a 'gentler' way to get WGs thinking about QA and also get

>them thinking of it in a broader sense, not just for developing tests
and 
>tools.
>
>Thus, I propose something like:
>
>Guideline 1: Integrate QA practices and deliverables into Working Group

>activities.
>Explanation would include how QA is integral to specs and
implementations 
>of those specs rather than an afterthought; that WGs should plan for
what 
>needs to be done; that experience has shown (e.g., XSL-FO, DOM, etc)
that 
>including QA has enhanced the development of the deliverables.
>
>Checkpoint1.1  Identify QA deliverables, expected milestones, etc.
>Checkpoint 1.2 Determine level of commitment and scope of test
materials
>Checkpoint 1.3 Define resources to staff effort
>Checkpoint 1.4 Indicate breath and depth of test material coverage 
>necessary for CR-exit
>Checkpont 1.5 Include QA activities and deliverables in Charter
>(note that for Charters, the W3C Process requires that deliverables be 
>identified with milestones, etc.)
>
>Basically, Checkpoints 1-4 are the steps to get to Checkpoint 5.
>
>If you don't accept the proposed Guideline 1  then, I propose the
following 
>change to the current Checkpoint 1:
>Guideline 1: Include QA activities and deliverables in Charter
>Checkpoints 1-4 same as above.
>
>
>Respectfully submitted.
>Lynne
>
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 22:29:23 GMT

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