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

Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:05:32 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE47E88ED.0B9681CC-ON85256D19.006D41A5@lotus.com>

Lofton's latest proposal (excerpted):
>CP1.1: Define QA commitment for operations, specifications, and test 
>materials. [Priority 1]
>ConfReq: the WG MUST:
>         * define its commitment level to OpsGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
>         * ...SpecGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
>         * ...TestGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
>         * define its commitment to produce or adopt at least some
>test materials for each of the WG's specifications before it becomes 
>Recommendation;

LH>Alternative: It might be cleaner to split out 4th bullet of above
LH>CP1.1 as new-CP1.2 (Priority 1)...

I like the alternative, because when I read this, I see
   * pick a quantum level
   * pick a quantum level
   * pick a quantum level
   * commit to have some TM; zero not allowed
where the 4th bullet breaks the parallel structure. Some specs morph
drastically from charter time to CR, so I think that the WG can't
make a charter-time commitment that will be measurable at a certain
level of detail. Let's split out the 4th one just because it will
have a separate criterion for attainment.
.................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 16:06:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT