- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:12:59 -0800
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I like it. The original version was basically just words lifted from the documents, and the writing style was less appropriate for a presentation. By the way, since I missed the second half of the discussion, I would appreciate seeing a draft of the minutes. Thanks... Lofton Henderson wrote: > > Patrick et al, > > I have some suggestions about the OpsGL slide. While my suggestion > doesn't change what it basically says, it does change the style > somewhat. You may prefer the old style, but having edited on OpsGL so > much (too much!), I think it's refreshing to see some different words > for a change. > > By the way, this is in the context of our decision at Tuesday telecon, > to move this slide to last (or near last), so that we can end with > some immediately actionable "punch". > > Current > ----- > > At 12:54 PM 2/17/03 -0800, Patrick Curran wrote: > >> [...] >> >> * Operations Guidelines (think QA) >> >> Appoint a QA lead >> Integrate QA into Working Group activities >> Define and allocate resources for QA activities >> Synchronize QA activities with the specification milestones >> Define the QA process >> Plan for development, publication, maintenance of test materials > > > Proposed revision > ----- > (see styling notes after outline). > > * Operations Guidelines (think QA) > > Appoint a QA lead > INTEGRATE IT -- commit to QA goals and scenario. > STAFF IT -- assess and assign appropriate staffing > COORDINATE IT -- synchronize QA and specification deliverables > PLAN IT -- the process for development, publication, maintenance > MAKE IT EASY -- use OpsGL's @@charter template@@ and @@process template@@ > > About styling. I don't advocate upper-case. But some styling to > emphasize the words that I have put in upper case. In the last slide, > the "@@" bracketed phrases would link to those templates. > > As I said, this is really a matter of style. You could use the > current words on the slide, and talk the latter words. Or use the > proposed words on the slide and talk the current words (or some > hybrid). My own preference is for the latter. Opinions? > > Also, I'm sure the words can be improved. This was a quick draft. > > More later (about feedback slide), > -Lofton. >
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:13:33 UTC