RE: Ops Guidelines Issue

Thanks, Lofton,

>do we intend to prescribe for existing WGs? 
I agree that we need to give a roadmap of what to do for existing WGs. 

>The only difference is *how*, i.e., the technique. 
Ok, I see your point. But for the existing groups it is hard to verify
if the checkpoints, since the "somehow" isn't deterministic and depends
on the circumstances...

May be just having a section in examples document explaining how to
apply the checkpoints to existing WGs would suffice? And then we can
point to it from the Notes to the corresponding Checkpoints in the Gd1
and 2...

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:27 PM
To: Kirill Gavrylyuk;
Subject: RE: Ops Guidelines Issue

We haven't addressed and answered the underlying issue yet -- do we
to prescribe for existing WGs?  But for the sake of discussion, let's 
assume that the answer is "yes".

Gd.1 and Gd.2 contain 7 checkpoints.  The first 6 apply to all WGs, new 
groups and existing groups.  *What* they should do is the same (if you 
ignore the words "in the charter").  The only difference is *how*, i.e.,

the technique.  New group:  "In the charter".  Existing group:
(okay, "somehow" could be something like "Minuted resolution in a WG 
meeting", or "charter amendment", or ...).

Gd.7, by comparison, is only applicable to some WGs in some special 
circumstances -- externally developed TM which are to be transferred to
the WG.

I think that it is more natural and more streamlined to differentiate 
new/existing in the "Techniques", than to replicate a handful of 
checkpoints that specify essentially the same "what-to-do", with
different wording for new/existing.


At 03:35 PM 4/18/02 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>Why not to deal with this issue the same way we did for the Transfer of

>the test suite from external party? (G7). In the Gd7 we just repeat the

>applicable chkpt from the Gd1 and Gd2. We can insert
>Gd 3 Introduce QA into existing WG
>and put there applicable reworded checkpoints from Gd1 and Gd2 -
>to Gd 7.
>What do you think?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson []
>Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:26 PM
>Subject: Re: Ops Guidelines Issue
>I have some thoughts now about how we could approach Issue #60.  I'll 
>omit detail for now, and focus on the overview:
>Guideline 1 and Guideline 2 are all stated in terms of "In 
>Charter,...", so they are apparently only applicable to new groups.  
>But we say in 1.3, and
>I believe that it is our intent, that *all* groups have QA
>-- new WG, WG in progress on first Rec, WG finished first Rec and
>on subsequent one.
>If this latter principle were agreed, then we should reword Gd.1, Gd.2,

>and their checkpoints.  They would not say "In charter", but rather 
>their wording would be applicable to all groups.  Then in two places we

>could say
>how it affects groups in various stages, and how the various WGs
>the checkpoint:
>1.) in the descriptive prose following each guideline and checkpoint;
>2.) and, in Ops-Extech we would distinguish and describe how WGs at 
>different stages satisfy the checkpoint:  new groups, "In charter"; 
>other groups ... (some other way, e.g., minuted resolution in 
>face-to-face or teleconference, etc).
>Underlying Issue
>The real question that needs to be answered before we implement such a 
>proposal is:  do we (QAWG) intend to assert that existing WGs have some

>QA responsibilities, i.e., are ultimately responsible for production 
>and existence of test materials related to their standards?  Or do we, 
>as now,
>intend to write prescriptions (re. commitment and resource allocation)
>for new WGs and advise the rest to "review and consider incorporating
>...etc..." (current sec 1.3).  This might be a delicate question -- an
>existing WG may feel that, when its charter was approved, it had a
>for the scope of its work and required deliverables.
>Any thoughts on this?
>At 11:59 AM 4/15/02 -0600, 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
> >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
> >mention of how an existing group should make its commitment, the TS 
> >responsibilities of a group that has published a Rec and has
> >or is rechartering.  For example:
> >
> >** in-progress towards Recommendation, but already chartered (e.g., 
> >
> >** 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
> >should do?  I don't have a proposal yet, but one or more of the
> >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
> >to old groups).
> >b.) add prose addressing "old groups"
> >c.) add new/old criteria to Ops-Extech for pass/fail ("verdict
> >
> >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]
> >

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 19:46:33 UTC