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

Re: P&O Document - Guideline 1

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:44:23 +0100
Message-Id: <200201280744.g0S7iNC25646@zidane.inria.fr>
To: lofton@rockynet.com
cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org

I agree with Lynne, but could live with doing it after the FPWD.

> 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 Monday, 28 January 2002 02:44:29 GMT

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