Review Assignments final plan

QAWG members,

There has been zero feedback on the proposed review assignments plan 
(attached).  Therefore, we will assume that it is accepted and is now 
operational.

Action Item All:  sign up (email to Dom) by 7/24 telecon for at least an 
OpsGL review and a SpecGL review.

Please have a look at the revised review assignment page [1].  You will 
notice some changes:

** a little more explanation, and alignment with the final plan
** a couple more entries, and marking some "done".
** new skeletons, for both OpsGL and SpecGL

Please have a look at the latter and let me know any comments.  The format 
is generally enhanced, and it is closely back-linked (per checkpoint) to 
the GL document from which it was generated (by XSLT).

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews


>Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:09:53 -0600
>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: proposal on Review Assignments
>Resent-From: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-qa-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/626
>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 --
>
>Please comment on this proposal for Review 
>Assignments.  Yes?  No?  Modify?  Please comment also on proposed sign up 
>date (7/27).
>
> From the minutes of today's telecon...
>
>At 11:56 AM 7/10/02 -0400, Karl wrote:
>>[...]
>>6.) Review assignments [2]
>>         [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews [Group Only]
>>
>>LH We will do a case study wrt to the QA Framework
>>... each person will do 3 reviews in the next 6 months
>>... sandra does it seem reasonnable (you did XML)
>>
>>SM it takes 2 hours in the morning
>>
>>LH it seems reasonnable
>>... you look at the guidelines and checkpoints and tries to extract the 
>>techniques
>>
>>Karl is asking for clarification
>>
>>LH After the teleconf, I will write a clear proposal and detailed.
>>... we can discuss it on the list.
>>... and we can start to put names in a Matrix for assignments
>>-----
>
>Okay, here is my clarification, and proposal.
>
>Background:  see [1], which is some discussion between Mark and I.  I 
>(probably) misunderstood Mark's proposal at Montreal.  In [1] I explain 
>why I don't think it is optimal, and outline the "3+1" modified proposal.
>
>Proposal:
>====
>
>Part 1:
>---
>Each QAWG member will do three case studies over the next 4-6 months -- 
>one for OpsGL, plus one for SpecGL, plus one for TestGL.  You'll start 
>with a skeletonized version of the GL document that looks something like 
>[2].  You'll fill in comments about how the target (WG, spec, TS) relates 
>to the checkpoint.  (Note.  There will be a bit of summary front matter 
>for you to provide also, and a bit of per-checkpoint front matter -- the 
>final skeleton that you use will contain placeholders.)
>
>Those of us who have done them for OpsGL so far think that they will take 
>around 1/2 day each, on the average, if you pick a WG/spec/TS that you're 
>familiar with.
>
>The rationale is two-fold:
>
>1-1.) this is critical for us, QAWG, in order to develop good GL 
>documents.  We who did OpsGL found that some bits of OpsGL didn't work so 
>well when you tried to actually apply it.  Also, each QAWG member will 
>have a really thoughtful look at each GL part, which seems valuable to us 
>for quality GL development.
>
>1-2.) it generates ample raw material for the Extech parts.
>
>Part 2:
>---
>Each QAWG member will do one "techniques analysis" over the next 4-6 
>months -- either one for OpsGL, or one for SpecGL, or one for TestGL.
>
>Rationale:  This will be the material from which we build the Extech 
>"Techniques" bits (which will still be complemented and supplemented by 
>some Case Studies [Examples] materials).
>
>Details:
>
>2-1.) we need to moderate these "techniques analysis" assignments, to make 
>sure that we get even coverage of Ops, Spec, Test.  I.e., we want 2-3 
>members to cover each one, instead of 7 Ops, 2 Spec, 0 Test.
>
>2-2.) Timing.  We could use Ops now, e.g., before mid-August, so that we 
>could have a OpsExtech document cycle before Tokyo (and in any case, 
>before anticipated October publication of Frm parts).  Spec would be good 
>before, say, before Tokyo.  Test [...uncertain...]
>
>2-3.) Labor.  Unknown.  We haven't done it yet.  Likely more than a case 
>study.  I would expect the Lead Editor of the Extech part to be one of the 
>2-3 volunteers.  In fact, he/she could subdivide the ckeckpoints of the GL 
>part amongst the 2-3 volunteers, to reduce per-member labor requirement.
>
>Signup:
>=====
>
>Assuming QAWG approval of something like this, would it be reasonable to 
>request WG members to sign up by next telecon (7/27)?  Signup is handled 
>by sending a message to Dom, per [3].  For the case studies (Ex), I don't 
>see much constraint on what you choose (although duplication dilutes 
>rationale 1-2 above).  For techniques analysis (Tech), we may shuffle 
>people around a bit to even out the coverage.
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0065.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/06/ops-skeleton-sample.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jun/0031.html
>

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 17:37:27 UTC