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

LC-58, don't mandate QAPD

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:17:21 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030430165212.031ab720@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org
For email discussion, and for agenda of OpsGL issues telecon...

Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x58

LC-58:   a WG should still be able to comply to a CP without having a QA 
Process Document.    Proposal: replace QA process document references by a 
documented WG decision?

Discussion
=====

Basically agree with Originator, with one proviso.  CP4.3 (priority 1) 
requires that there be a QAPD, and 13 other checkpoints enumerate the 
minimal contents for the QAPD (they are varying priorities, 1, 2, 3).  If 
the bits and pieces are found in 13 fragments of telecon minutes, or 13 
archived email messages, or some hybrid ... okay.  (Or fewer, if for 
example the WG is only achieving OpsGL A-conformant, i.e., the P1 checkpoints).

But references to these "documented WG decisions" should all be collected 
in one place, i.e., the WG should produce a Table of Contents.  Such a TOC 
could be the satisfaction of  CP4.3 (and should be).  This is very similar 
to our approach in SpecGL to ensuring that critical conformance information 
is easily discoverable in a specification.

So CP4.3 could say, effectively, "produce a QAPD or the equivalent", and 
define equivalent.  In fact, we could define a QAPD to be a single 
standalone document, or a TOC to bits of its OpsGL-required QAPD content, 
or any hybrid.  A small adjustment to the wording of CP4.3 would be required.

Proposed Resolution:
=====

In CP4.3, list single document, TOC to distributed materials, or hybrid as 
techniques that satisfy QAPD requirement.

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 19:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT