RE: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities

Reducing to qa-wg list as this contains member-only links.


I have 2 arguments:

1. XMLP did have the limitation of 2 people per company. See charter
[1], Membership:

> Each W3C Member organization is limited to at most one principal
member and one alternate member of this Working Group.


In general the participation from [2] indicates that the charter may
impose more limitations on membership then required by the charter.


2. At the same time if every member would allocate a test resource, it
will create a mess in a large WG. 


I'd suggest either to downgrade this checkpoint to P2 or reword it to
say that 

... participating members indicate what resources are allocated to QA

but don't make it required for each member.








-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:39 PM
To: Mark Skall
Subject: Re: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities 


At 06:23 PM 5/13/03 -0400, you wrote:

At 12:40 PM 5/13/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

At 08:06 AM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

Cp2.3. Request allocation of QA resources to the Working Group.
[Priority 1]

I d suggest downgrading this one to Pri2.

This may not be implementable/manageable for Working Groups of too small
and too large size(XMLP). 
In some cases W3C has to impose a limitation on the number of
participants in the WG.

Clarification please?

Can you give examples where W3C has imposed limits, or point me to
something in the W3C Process document?  I have heard talk about a de
facto limit of 2-people-per-company on WGs, but I don't know where it
comes from.

There was discussion about this at a prior AC meeting.  When discussing
attracting more people to the QAWG Paul Cotton said it would violate W3C
process to assign more than 2 people to a WG.

I don't think this is in the W3C Process.  I just did a quick scan.  I
found this quote in 4.2.2:  "* Each Member organization or group of
related Members must only be allowed one vote, even though each Member
may have several participants in the group."

Even so, I wouldn't consider that a compelling argument to downgrade
CP2.3 from P1 to P2.  Quoting CP2.3 ConfReq:

"Conformance requirements: a new or rechartering Working Group MUST, in
its Call for Participation, request that participating members allocate
some staffing resources specifically for QA work. An existing Working
Group MAY make external appeal for QA-specific resources in one of
various other ways."

Note "request" instead of "require".  Do we really think it is not
essential to start soliciting QA specialists when the WG is forming?
(Experience in SVG:  every one joins to invent the cool things; few to
none have any interest in test suites, interop, etc.).  Another way to
look at it:

P1:  critical/essential
P2:  important/desirable

Which fits?


	In any case, you're argument boils down to:  if there were a
limit on WG size, then we should allow the WG throw out the QA staffing?
Or actually, to throw out the *request* for dedicated QA specialists?
(Remember, this is about asking for QA specialists in the Call for
	I don't like it. I think P1 is appropriate.

Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262 
Fax:   301-590-9174 

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 22:35:30 UTC