Re: Ops Guidelines Issue

We (Sandra Martinez and me) have experienced this smae issue when we mapped 
the XML Test Suite work of the XML Core WG to the Operational Guideline.
Lynne


At 01:59 PM 4/15/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>QA Working Group --
>
>I have come up with an issue about the Ops Guidelines [1].
>
>Recently I have been looking at the QA aspects of SVG (while generating 
>content for Ops-Extech), and have been looking at some existing activities 
>that have published Recommendations (such as XML 1.0 and XSLT 1.0).
>
>Issue:  Checkpoints don't clearly address existing groups.
>
>Description:
>
>In the introductory section 1.3, "Navigating..", we say:
>
>"This document is applicable to all Working Groups, including those that 
>are being rechartered or already exist. Working Groups may already be 
>doing some of these activities and should review the document and in so 
>far as possible incorporate principles and guidelines into their work"
>
>The first couple of guidelines -- QA responsibility, QA commitment, 
>resource allocation, etc -- are all written for new groups.  There is no 
>mention of how an existing group should make its commitment, the TS 
>responsibilities of a group that has published a Rec and has rechartered 
>or is rechartering.  For example:
>
>** in-progress towards Recommendation, but already chartered (e.g., XFORMS)?
>
>** done w/ a first Recommendation, but moving on to further work (e.g., 
>SVG, XSLT, XML)?
>
>Imagine being a member of one of these groups and looking at the first 
>couple of Guidelines/Checkpoints.  What would you conclude about what you 
>should do?  I don't have a proposal yet, but one or more of the following 
>options might be appropriate:
>
>a.) reword the guidelines and checkpoints, or add new ones (i.e., there 
>would be "applicability" here -- some ckpts apply to new groups and some 
>to old groups).
>b.) add prose addressing "old groups"
>c.) add new/old criteria to Ops-Extech for pass/fail ("verdict criteria")
>
>I think this is important enough that we should take a little time, so 
>I'll log it as an issue, unless anyone objects.  (Btw, I'll have new, 
>substantially revised issues list out today.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020405/qaframe-ops
>