Closing LC-58 ("don't mandate QAPD")

QAWG --

Processing method for this issue...

If there is no email discussion on the proposal, then on Friday, 9th May, 
it will be marked "Resolved", and not discussed on telecon.

If there is email discussion, we will assess whether telecon discussion is 
needed.

Discussion should be on the IG list (where below copied proposal message 
happened).

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 05:17 PM 4/30/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>For email discussion, and for agenda of OpsGL issues telecon...
>
>Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x58
>
>LC-58:   a WG should still be able to comply to a CP without having a QA 
>Process Document.    Proposal: replace QA process document references by a 
>documented WG decision?
>
>Discussion
>=====
>
>Basically agree with Originator, with one proviso.  CP4.3 (priority 1) 
>requires that there be a QAPD, and 13 other checkpoints enumerate the 
>minimal contents for the QAPD (they are varying priorities, 1, 2, 3).  If 
>the bits and pieces are found in 13 fragments of telecon minutes, or 13 
>archived email messages, or some hybrid ... okay.  (Or fewer, if for 
>example the WG is only achieving OpsGL A-conformant, i.e., the P1 checkpoints).
>
>But references to these "documented WG decisions" should all be collected 
>in one place, i.e., the WG should produce a Table of Contents.  Such a TOC 
>could be the satisfaction of  CP4.3 (and should be).  This is very similar 
>to our approach in SpecGL to ensuring that critical conformance 
>information is easily discoverable in a specification.
>
>So CP4.3 could say, effectively, "produce a QAPD or the equivalent", and 
>define equivalent.  In fact, we could define a QAPD to be a single 
>standalone document, or a TOC to bits of its OpsGL-required QAPD content, 
>or any hybrid.  A small adjustment to the wording of CP4.3 would be required.
>
>Proposed Resolution:
>=====
>
>In CP4.3, list single document, TOC to distributed materials, or hybrid as 
>techniques that satisfy QAPD requirement.
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.