Re: my AI-2002-10-16-1 (& AI-20021008-06)

This looks like a good start.  We need a web page that provides the 
information to the WGs.  I think the web page is more important than a set 
of slides - but that it is the same information that a slide set would have.

lynne


At 05:17 PM 12/10/2002 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>QAWG --
>
>Karl has agreed to be owner of AI-20021008-06 (see [1]), Dimitris 
>assisting.  Thanks Karl!
>
>I have a related action item,  AI-2002-10-16-1 (which this email closes),
>
>         AI-2002-10-16-1 lofton start email discussion about possible 
> presentation material for outreach to other groups.
>
>So here goes, here are some thoughts...
>
>For Karl's item, I think that there are two related parts that we need to 
>think about:
>
>1.) a briefing package (slide show) for approaching the WGs
>2.) a strategy, plan of action, and schedule for how to interact with the WGs
>
>#1 is where my item -- "start email dialog" -- applies.
>
>I think that #1 should probably be about 15 minutes, so that we can 
>present it in a WG teleconference, or to a WG at TechPlen week, or ...  Do 
>you think 15 minutes is a good target, or is it too short?  (20?  30?)
>
>Before we can decide what should be included in #1 and how we should do 
>#2, we need to understand:
>
>         -- what do we want from the WGs;
>         -- and, what do we want to tell them?
>
>Some possibilities:
>
>** reference the Framework and other QA resources
>- esp. Matrix, Notes, etc
>- future possible TTF (feedback?)
>
>** why should they want to use Framework?
>- this need NOT increase their total work
>- should REDUCE their work, if done from beginning
>- more business case? (DD?)
>- success case studies/testimonials (SVG, SOAP, DOM, CSS, ...)
>(- lotsa benefit from simply trying to apply a GL document )
>
>** about Framework becoming mandatory some day
>- why should it be mandatory (justification)?
>
>** what we need/want from WGs
>- they look at Framework (SpecGL, OpsGL)
>- start to apply key ideas now
>- give us feedback on Framework
>- more feedback:  what do WGs want/need from us?
>
>** we need from WG's member companies
>- a few good QAWG participants
>- (anything else?)
>
>** a few easy "starter" actions from OpsGL
>- appoint a QA moderator and task team
>- decide and document QA commitments
>- plan and synchronize deliverables
>- set up communications and Web page
>- call for participation (more people, for QA work)
>
>** a few easy "starter" items from SpecGL
>- be sure you have a conformance clause/section
>- be sure that critical conformance information is easy to find
>- make sure that the spec's scope is clear
>- be clear about classes of product and conformance policy
>- ...
>
>(Hmmm... now that I look at it, I think 20 minutes might be minimal for a 
>presentation.)
>
>The idea behind the last two sections is:  "don't be overwhelmed by the 
>25-30 checkpoints in each GL document -- here are a few easy things that 
>you can start doing right now, that won't cost much time/effort".  I may 
>have got the particular items wrong, but it seems like a good idea to 
>suggest an easy, low-pain, introductory (pre-mandatory) experience with 
>the GL documents.
>
>Some part of what we want to tell them probably can come from previous 
>informative presentations:
>
>a.) subset of LH slides from Cannes and KD slides from Boston (AC 
>mtg);  [2], [3]
>b.) subset of slides from July Project Review w/ Team.  [4]
>
>The rest will be new.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Cheers,
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Dec/0047.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0227-TP-QA/Overview-4.html
>[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/1120-ac-QA/
>[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0718-qa/