Re: QAWGPD at Boston

Howdy folks,

Thanks a lot for these comments Loften. I've been trying to work on 
another draft since our last face to face, incorporating what changes 
were mentioned there, though we never got to actually discuss the 
document.
The biggest change that came out of the last F2F was to take section 
3 of OpsGL and move it over to the process document as a basis for 
section 2 of the process doc.
I've grabbed the text from section 3 and I'm in the process of 
fitting it into place as well as doing a lot more work on the first 
section.
Where things are least clearly defined concerns section 3 of the 
process document, ie, our process for test materials. This is a good 
part of what I was hoping to clarify at the last meeting and I'm 
hoping we will be able to get to some of it on Friday when we are 
scheduled to talk about this document.
Section 1 of the document is the furthest along and is doing fine. A 
lot of your comments below address what things I had questions on 
here so that's great.


Peter

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 06:40  PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>QA WG participants --
>
>According to Dom's OpsGL assessment of QAWG ([1], [2]), we fail.  A 
>lot of the problems are related to our lack of a QAPD (QA Process 
>Document).  About a dozen of OpsGL's checkpoints rely on addressing 
>required items in a QAPD.
>
>Our QAPD is supposed to be part 3 of our combined QAWG Process 
>Document (QAWGPD).  The current draft is at [3].  It is on our 
>agenda for Boston, and we should set the goal to finish it.  Please 
>have a look in advance, and be ready to raise any issues that you 
>have with it.  Advance comments by email are preferable, as always.
>
>Here are some comments of my own.
>
>There are numerous "@@@".  A lot are editorial tasks to be 
>completed, some are substantive issues.
>
>Sec1.1, last "@@@":  we need to decide between chair or vote, for 
>accepting invited experts.  While I think it's a good idea to record 
>a well-defined way to handle invited experts, on the other hand it 
>should be consistent with our generally low-key and flexible 
>approach (we *rarely* vote on things).  So I would opt for "chair" 
>or "chair, after consultation with WG members."  I.e., we make sure 
>everyone is aware, and then chair makes decision (this gives the 
>opportunity for any significant negatives to be raised).
>
>Sec1.2, last pgph:  I think the answer to the "@@@" question is 
>"no". Also, if we agree that invited expert should not force a 
>necessary vote, then should "Topic expert" be any different?
>
>Sec3.2.  This section needs work -- guidelines about what things we 
>to the IG and when.  It arises again later, in the section about 
>issues.
>
>Sec4:  Notification of AI completion should be "Cc:" to QAWG.
>
>Sec5.1, 2nd pgph:  I guess the right way is to formally enter 
>issues, but for expedience (when we have been pressed for time), we 
>have taken short-cuts.  E.g., the 25+ AR SpecGL comments before 
>Seattle.  We ended up doing the equivalent of Issue List processing 
>(numbered, discussed, resolved, replied to commenter).  It is nice 
>to have all of this stuff in a single place, but time pressure 
>sometimes prevents.  Actually, I think if we just delete the 2nd 
>paragraph we don't lose anything, and the essential process 
>requirements remain.
>
>Sec5.2.  "Chair (document editor?)"  -- probably "Chair".  Note that 
>document editor is typically assigned to be the owner, as we are now 
>doing things.
>
>Sec5.2:  All issues should have a proposed resolution before they 
>are logged/queued.  I would assign that to the owner, to ensure that 
>they have such.
>
>Sec5.3:  This should address and make clear whether issue discussion 
>is on IG list or WG list.  Or sometimes IG, sometimes WG (and what 
>is the criterion to decide.)
>
>Sec 5.x:  Should we indicate that Sec 5 describes the normal or 
>nominal way of handling issues, but we can make "reasonable" 
>exemptions by WG consensus?  Reason.  What we did with the 28 AR 
>issues (on SpecGL) was reasonable and equivalent, and observed all 
>of the necessary aspects -- discussion, consensus, notification -- 
>but was an expedient.  (And violated our processes as written.)  We 
>should ensure that we are using reasonable processes -- like these 
>described ones if possible -- but not inflexibly tie our hands.
>
>"Test Material":  This final 1/3 (major section) is our QAPD.  A 
>couple of global comments:
>
>** We need to measure what is in here against Dom's comments ([1], [2]).
>
>** We need to consider and define, what are test materials for our 
>three GL specs?
>
>** Should we try the exercise of filling in the QAPD template [4], 
>and putting it here instead?
>
>All for now,
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0116.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2003/02/qaframe-ops-qawg
>[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qawgpd-20030103.html
>[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd-20030217

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 14:21:15 UTC