- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:52:06 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> 1st: > ----- > QAWG charter, Scope ([1]), 1st bullet. We don't understand what the second > part of the bullet means: "optionally can work on specification > improvement, but this is not a required deliverable". Is this somehow > different from spec improvement that would result from the spec reviews of > the first part of the bullet? I can't remember how this got in, but I don't see an issue with removing it, being marked as option. So it's gone. > 2nd: > ----- > QAWG charter, Scope ([1]), last bullet: " refinement of the a QAPD > ?" We're unsure what "QAPD" refers to. There are two possibilities, and I > think you probably mean #2 (that's what OpsGL would require of us): > > 1.) QAWG's generic WG process document (QAWGPD). We worked on this a bit > at Boston f2f, but never quite finished it. Things like procedures for > raising issues, re-opening closed issues, etc. Stuff that isn't otherwise > defined in W3C Process document. > > 2.) QAWG's QA Process Document (QAWG-QAPD). Peter and Patrick worked on > this at the end of Boston meeting and made a draft. They started from > OpsGL's QAPD template, and generated lotsa good comments for improvements > to that. They also raised the issue, "what are QAWG's test materials", > which we discussed at Crete. Yes, I was thinking of the second, our QAPD. > But when reading it, I started to have a problem, which confirms an > observation of Peter's: it gets very tricky and confusing, talking about > "the QA of QA" (or more precisely, the QA of QAWG). > > In theory, we think we understand it well enough now to sort out the level > of recursion and comply with OpsGL's requirements that we have a QAPD. But > in reality, it looks pretty worthless to anyone outside of QAWG, much less > to QAWG members. > > That said, it doesn't look good to try to say, "it doesn't apply to us" -- > the immediate reply is, "eat your own dogfood". Okay, we can do that. But > after trying to read and understand QAWG-QAPD, and trying to sort out how > to improve it ... I think we should do it, and quitely bury it somewhere > obscure on our web site. And it ought to have a Caveat at the start > (apologies if meta-QA is not simply understood.) Fine with me, I'll add some details in the charter to make clear what QAPD we're talking about. I just updated http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/charter200307.html and if I receive no further comments, I'll push it in the renewall pipeline soon (agreement by W3C Management, then message to ac-member list and call for participation).
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 07:52:10 UTC