Re: Comments on Framework INTRO (jan 18)

Lynne,

Thanks for your careful reading and comments.  I'll give a detailed reply 
later on any points that might warrant, but it all looks good at first 
quick reading.

-Lofton.

At 11:22 AM 1/23/02 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>The following are my comments and suggestions for the Framework 
>Introduction, (18 Jan 2002)
>
>1.  Section1.2 - 4th para, last few sentences
>Replace "And even those WGs which have..." to the end of the paragaph. 
>Since, not really re-inventing their processes, they are starting from 
>scratch, but reinventing what others have already done. Suggest::
>Moreover, these efforts are distributed throughout W3C, making it 
>difficult or at least time consuming for WGs pursuing their QA goals to 
>find and take advantage of what has already been done.  Each WG has 
>started from scratch, researching the numerous existing TS activities and 
>defining their own processes, operational framework and technical 
>deliverables.
>2.  Section 3.1
>Reword, so that all bullets are ‘parallel’
>·       Working Groups at all stages of maturity, ranging from newly 
>created (i.e., just chartered), to mature, to extended (i.e., re-chartered);
>·       Specifications at all stages of document progression (i.e., 
>Process REC-Track), ranging from First Working Draft through REC, post-REC 
>errata processing and subsequent edition publication;
>·       Conformance test materials of all types (i.e., described in 
>[TAXONOMY]), ranging from content validators to test suites and tools for 
>products, interfaces, and APIs;
>·       QA Experience in developing test materials, ranging from minimal 
>to significant;
>·       Resources for developing test materials, ranging from insufficient 
>staffing levels to staffing levels commensurate for the QA delverables;
>·       Venue for Development of test materials, ranging from intra-WG 
>development to combination of WG and external organization to external 
>organization development of complete test material.
>
>3.      Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph
>Remove.  This info is unstable (i.e., will be changing) and should be in 
>the Status section. (that is how its done in WAI Guidelines)
>
>4.      Sections 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5 should all be written in the 
>same manner (parallel structure and info)  For example:  structure each to 
>address (1) target audience, (2) objective (taken from document’s abstract 
>or intro) and brief list of topics in the document, (3) when and why read 
>this document.  Additionally, the bullet list of what each document covers 
>should also be ‘parallel’ in their depth and breath.
>
>5.      Section 3.4.3 Suggest changes:
>“This document is primarily targeted to people explicitly involved in QA 
>activities.  This includes both those within the W3C Working Groups (as 
>mentioned in the previous section) as well as others from organizations 
>external to the W3C involved in developing test materials.
>
>The goal of this document is to present procedural and operational 
>guidelines for groups undertaking conformance materials development.  The 
>document contains information about:
>·       Process considerations and tasks for incorporating QA related 
>activities within the Working Group
>·       Operational activities for building conformance test suites and tools
>·       Resource considerations for staffing QA effort
>·       Interaction between WGs and QA Activity and between WGs and 
>external organizations developing conformance materials
>·       IPR issues
>
>Supplementing the Process and Operational Guideline is a companion 
>document, Technique and Examples.  The Process and Operational Technique 
>and Examples document provides examples and pointer to existing QA work, 
>illustrating the principles and guidelines set forth in the Process and 
>Operational Guideline.
>
>These documents should be considered required reading for anyone involved 
>in launching, taking over, or maintaining QA-related work.
>
>6.  Actually, reading Section 4, I’m thinking that some of the above 
>belongs in Section 4  in particular, the (#2) target audience and (#3) 
>when and why read this document.  Right now, the sections are somewhat 
>redundant
>
>7.      Section 4.1.3, 1st para  I’m confused as to what this says. Can 
>you clarify this.
>
>
>--Lynne
>