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

LC-60.3, 60.5, 60.7, 60.8

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:38:36 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030512151405.045941d0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

This is the first piece of several pieces that will collectively propose 
*specific* resolutions for LC-60.3 through LC-60.15.

For resolutions of LC-60.3 through LC-60.15,  a proposal for resolutions 
was circulated a couple weeks ago at:

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0064.html

Since then, we have resolved LC-60.1 to "clarify and solve the particular 
problems, but try to avoid major re-org".

The following issues relate to GL1 and GL2, which are also the subject of 
the major clarification of the QA-commit-table group:  LC-60.3, 60.5, 60.7, 
60.8.

Below is a proposed solution of each of these.  The proposed solutions, 
along with the commit-table-group, are reflected in a WG-discussion draft 
of OpsGL at [4].

LC-60.3.
=====
Guideline 2: I'd say "Allocate resources..." rather than "Define resources..."

Discussion:  This is about early *commitment* to a resource level -- 
possibly even before the WG membership is known -- as opposed to the 
(later) operational aspect of actually assigning or allocating the QA 
team.  This aspect of GL1 and GL2 is not sufficiently clear, based on other 
comments.

Proposal:  Emphasize early commitment more.

1.) Change GL2 from "Define resources for Working Group QA activities", to 
"Commit to resource level for Working Group QA activities."
2.) Similarly, change wording of GL1 from "Integrate Quality Assurance into 
Working Group activities." to "Commit to Quality Assurance in Working Group 
activities."  (NOTE.  This was not a specific part of a resolved LC issue, 
but was done as a piece of the general effort to separate and clarify what 
GL1/2 are about, compared to GL3-8.)
3.) Add a couple sentences to the verbiage of each of GL1 and GL2, and link 
to the new (LC-57) diagram/table of chronological view of the guidelines 
(skeleton section for now).

LC-60.5
=====
How is checkpoint 3.1 different from 1.5?

Discussion.  The difference clearly isn't made obvious enough.  1.5 (in 
fact all of GL1) is about documenting the commitment/intent, and 3.1 is 
about the actual execution of QA plans/activities. The discussion of 3.1 
tries to draw the distinction, but doesn't seem to do a very good job.

The changes of LC-60.3 (above) should help.  In addition...

Proposal.  At the end of CP1.5 Discussion add,

"This checkpoint is related to @@Checkpoint 3.1@@, but is concerned 
specifically with early, (ideally) Charter-phase commitment to bind 
QA-related entry/exit criteria to the major process milestones as defined 
in the W3C Process Document.  Checkpoint 3.1 is concerned with the 
operational aspects of synchronizing specific QA deliverables with 
successive specification versions."

In the CP3.1 Discussion change:

"This is a specialization of the @@checkpoint requirement above@@ -- 
associate QA criteria with each Working Group milestone -- to the specific 
WG milestones of specification stages on the Recommendation track. The 
natural QA criterion for such a specification publication milestone is the 
publication of the updated test materials or related QA deliverables."

to:

"This checkpoint is related to @@Checkpoint 1.5@@.  However, that 
checkpoint concerns the (ideally) Charter-phase commitment to bind 
QA-related criteria to the status transitions of the WG's specifications, 
as defined in the W3C Process Document. This checkpoint concerns the 
synchronization of any and all QA deliverables with successive versions of 
the specifications, whether they be successive published WDs, CR succeeding 
Last Call WD, etc."

LC-60.7:
=====
Guideline 4: Probably should be #1 (it's the first chronologically). When 
we summarized this document in our outreach presentation we made checkpoint 
4.1 the first bullet item...

Discussion.  This is a matter of preference.  GL1/2 are about early 
*commitment* to QA and QA deliverables.  Possibly even in the Charter, 
before the WG is rolling.  GL4 is about process and operations within the 
functioning WG.  It is equally arguable that this is the best order.  Per 
the 20030512 resolution of LC-60.1, we will not do any re-ordering or 
re-grouping of GL/CP unless something is really broken.

Proposal:  Keep the current order.

LC-60.8:
=====
Checkpoints 4.1 and 4.2 would seem to belong in Guideline 2 
(define/allocate resources) rather than here?

Discussion.  Again, GL1 and 2 are about early commitment (ideally Charter) 
to QA levels, staffing levels, etc.  GL4 is about performance -- specific 
staff assignments -- going forward.

Proposal:  At the end of Discussion of CP2.2, add:

"This checkpoint is related to @@Checkpoint 4.1@@ and @@Checkpoint 4.2@@, 
in that they all deal with staff for QA activities.  However this 
checkpoint concerns the early, (ideally) Charter-phase commitment to a 
level of QA staffing appropriate for the total QA commitments, whereas the 
checkpoints 4.1 and 4.2 concern the actual operational assignment of the 
staff and establishment of the QA task force."

To the end of the Discussion for CP4.1 add:

"This checkpoint and @@Checkpoint 4.2@@ are related to @@Checkpoint 2.2@@, 
in that they all deal with staff for QA activities.  However Checkpoint 2.2 
concerns the early, (ideally) Charter-phase commitment to a level of QA 
staffing appropriate for the total QA commitments, whereas this checkpoint 
and Checkpoint 4.2 concern the actual operational assignment of the staff 
and establishment of the QA task force."

To the end of the Discussion for CP4.2 add:

This checkpoint and @@Checkpoint 4.1@@ are related to @@Checkpoint 2.2@@, 
in that they all deal with staff for QA activities.  However Checkpoint 2.2 
concerns the early, (ideally) Charter-phase commitment to a level of QA 
staffing appropriate for the total QA commitments, whereas this checkpoint 
and Checkpoint 4.1 concern the actual operational assignment of the staff 
and establishment of the QA task force.


Regards,
Lofton.

[2]  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x60
[3]  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/
[4]  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/05/qaframe-ops-20030512
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 20:36:08 GMT

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