W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2003

chronology & OpsGL CPs

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:27:37 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa@w3.org

For email discussion, and for the agenda at the OpsGL issues telecon...

Ref: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x57
Ref: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x60

This pair of issues suggests (both) a restructure of the GL & CP -- order, 
CP grouping, GL statements, etc -- be done, based on the chronology of the 
given activity in the WGs life-cycle.  At least (LC-57), the relationship 
of the GL&CP to the milestones in a WGs life should be document (described 
or pictured).

For reference, the organizing principle of the Last Call WD could best be 
described as "by logical activity" first, with a strong chronology 
influence.  This has been refined and developed over 5 published WDs, over 
almost 1-1/2 years.

The Comments:
LC-57:  most guidelines are only applicable at some point in the WG's life, 
but the GL don't identify this aspect: this is something that absolutely 
needs to be stressed, and could even be used as a strategy to organize the 
GL as a whole, e.g. what you need to do before starting a WG, what needs to 
be done when you start developing a new spec, what needs to be done when 
you envision building a test suite, etc.    Proposal: at least, provide a 
section (an image?) linking the GL or the CP to the milestones of a WG life

LC-60.1:  Overall, I think we have the right checkpoints, but I think they 
would be easier to understand if they were grouped chronologically. Start 
with what needs to be done when the WG is formed, and proceed through the 
spec and test development cycle to the maintenance phase, as we have tried 
to do with the restructuring of TestGL.  Proposal:  A possible set of 
guidelines might be:

     * Charter
     * Allocation of resources
     * Planning & synchronization
     * Test submission/development
     * Test management
     * Test publication
     * Conformance testing (test usage)
     * Maintenance

First, there is indeed a strong chronological component in LC OpsGL:

    1. Integrate Quality Assurance into Working Group activities.
    2. Define resources for Working Group QA activities.
    3. Synchronize QA activities with the specification milestones.
    4. Define the QA process.
    5. Plan test materials development.
    6. Plan test materials publication.
    7. Plan the transfer of test materials to W3C if needed.
    8. Plan for test materials maintenance.

There is a noticeable parallel between the two, though the details differ, 
each has some groups that the other doesn't, and some things are in 
different order.  It should also be noted that GL1 & GL2 were originally 
phrased in terms of the charter, each CP beginning "In the Charter...".  As 
a result of QAWG-60 [1], "In the Charter..." was removed, and fulfillment 
criteria were included for new (Charter) and existing working groups.  So 
the ideal chronology is Charter-phase for GL1 & GL2.  But we want any 
working group at a reasonable stage of its life to do these things -- 
document their commitments.

Btw, how many new working groups (new Charters) do we expect in the next 
couple years?

Second, timing.  If the changes to OpsGL are "small-ish", then we the 
chance to meet our goal of CR before Crete, and avoid a 2nd Last Call.  If 
too substantive (or even substantive *looking*), we might have to publish a 
6th WD.  Accordingly my priorities are:  fix it if it's broken, leave it 
alone (or fine tune it) otherwise.  I might have preferred the LC-60 
proposal (but would have to see the complete GL/CP details) if it appeared 
at a stage similar to TestGL (2nd PWD) -- it did great things for TestGL, 
over TestGL's 1st PWD.   But I don't think the risk is worth the gain at 
this stage for OpsGL.


Document the relationship as proposed in LC-57.  Do not implement a general 
restructure -- order, grouping, etc.  Consider some fine tuning of where 
CPs might reside (within GLs) during consideration of additional, specific 


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x60
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 18:25:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC