- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:41:12 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
It's a first approach to identify the places for QA in the Process Document. I will try to find clear solution with regards to the QA Framework in a next mail. If you have comments on this one you are welcome. There are different places along the life of an activity where official documents are produced and actions are made. Activity -> Activity Proposal (draft) nature of the activity (e.g., to track developments, create technical reports, develop code, organize pilot experiments, education, etc.) create test suites? -> AC comments Some Members can ask for QA identification in the proposal like NIST for example -> Activity Statement The Proposal has been modified with regards to the comments. -> Activity Creation -> Group Requirement See further. -> Charter (draft) Written by someone from the Team, and reviewed by people of the Team. See further. -> Review by the W3M the W3C Management decides if the charter is accepted. -> Charter -> Recommendation Track the different stage of the recommendation track must follow what has been defined in the charter for each individual stage. Entrance Criteria required. - Last Call: Must fulfill the charter - CR: not required 2 independant and interoperable implementations but encouragement for a report on present and expected implementation. - CR Implementation Period: there's a minimal duration - PR: each feature have been implemented. the WG SHOULD be able to demonstrate 2 interoperable implementations of each feature. My first approach is that if we want a charter more complete, we'll have to have a mention in the process Document which says that the charter must indicate the level of commitment of each Deliverables with regards to the QA Framework. At the same time, the Process Document could impose others requirements - DI requirements See http://www.w3.org/TR/di-princ/ - I18N requirements See http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod - QA requirements See http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-intro - WAI requirements See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlgl http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/ No document about non XML technologies like CSS So you will have in the charter the list of documents, a schedule, level of commitments. If it's not in the process document, the requirement could be the Charter MUST be reviewed by DI, I18N, QA, WAI before to be accepted. * Requirement for Groups ------------------------ http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups - must have a charter - must have a Chair - must have a Team Contact - must have a mailing list - may form task forces to carry out assignments. My reading of that is that the task forces could be detailed a bit with Editors, QA Contact, Test Suite coordinator. The problem is that often it's very difficult to fin these persons before the start of the working group. * Charter ---------- The process document on the charter impose a MUST for topics but do not imply any formal organisation in the topics. It's in fact when you are looking at it very loosy. I understand the fact that it's loosy to give space and possibility to accomodate a large number of group types, but it must be more like a modular thing with options. From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#WGCharter A Working Group or Interest Group charter ***MUST*** include the following information. - Group mission - develop a technology process (good place for QA and TS) - write the charter of another group (means QA can write the QA section of other groups) - Criteria for Success * a Test Suite for each Rec, could be imposed. - Any dependencies * Here there's a place to say that they should have a QA contact -- Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager http://www.w3.org/QA/ --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 15:06:05 UTC