W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Fwd: sign up for Techniques Analysis

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:05:48 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG participants --

I have gotten questions about the Techniques Analysis assignment -- 
uncertainty what the assignment consists of.  So let me review the proposal.

There are three GL documents -- OpsGL, SpecGL, and TestGL.  Each GL 
document has an Extech (Examples & Techniques) companion document.  As 
pointed out at Montreal, Ops-Extech is all "Ex" and no "Tech" -- i.e., it 
doesn't present techniques that are sufficient to satisfy the checkpoints, 
it only presents examples of how some projects relate to the 
requirements.  We decided that we wanted techniques in these document 
(didn't we?).

So we agreed to a proposal in mid-summer that was built on Mark's 
suggestion at Montreal.  We will each contribute to the definition of 
techniques.  Each of you will pick one document and work on it:  pick 
OpsGL, or SpecGL, or TestGL.   Look at each checkpoint of your GL document 
(OpsGL, or SpecGL, or TestGL).  For each checkpoint, enumerate a set of 
techniques that can be used to satisfy the checkpoint.  You don't need to 
draft the entire text, just outline the techniques sufficient for editors 
to take and develop full text.

Since there are 10 "volunteers" (QAWG members), and each is doing one 
analysis, there will be several people working on each of the 3 GL 
documents.  We want to ensure that we have uniform coverage on each 
document, e.g., we don't want 8 OpsGL, 1 SpecGL, 1 TestGL.  So we will make 
a limit -- at most 3 people working on each of the documents.  First 3 to 
sign up.

Whatever your document -- OpsGL, or SpecGL, or TestGL -- there will be a 
couple of other people working on it.  So (we haven't discussed it yet), 
you can team up and split the document, or collaborate in some other way.

Time frame:  tbd.  Soon after a GL document is "stable enough".  Before the 
end of the year, for sure.

Note.  This is in different from and in addition to your review assignment 
(of WGs, specs, and test materials).

Questions or comments?  Agreed?  (We can discuss in 4-sep telecon.)


>Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:23:07 -0600
>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: sign up for Techniques Analysis
>Resent-From: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-qa-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/854
>X-Loop: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-qa-wg.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-qa-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>QAWG members --
>Per last week's telecon Action Items...
>"AI-20020821-6 LH to write ground rules for techniques analysis review and 
>call for sign ups."
>Here is my proposal.
>Okay, we have three GL documents and 10 QAWG members.  That means three 
>contributors per GL document, plus one extra.
>OpsGL:  3 volunteers needed
>SpecGL:  3 volunteers needed
>TestGL:  3 volunteers needed
>If you want to chose your GL, then write to Dominique (dom@w3.org) and 
>please Cc: the QAWG (so that we're all aware what's being chosen).  Dom 
>will enter your choice (OpsGL or SpecGL or TestGL) into the last column of 
>your row of the reviews matrix [1].  Except if there are already three 
>signed up for that GL document, then you will get a "sorry" in reply 
>(choose again).  In fact, you should check [1] before you send your 
>message to Dom, to be sure that there aren't already three signed up for 
>your GL document.
>If you don't choose by the next telecon (4 Sept), then the chairs will 
>assign the remaining people to GL documents.
>Questions or comments?
>(I haven't thought it through yet, about if or how the three should work 
>together on a GL document.  Divide the checkpoints?  Each person do all 
>checkpoints?  Other?  But however, each person will have a contribution 
>towards an Extech document.)
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:05:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:31 UTC