Re: Comments on Framework INTRO (jan 18)

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.

Done.


>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.

Done.


>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)

Partially accepted.  I removed references to the status of this document 
(Frm:Intro).  But I left some (revised) reference to relationship to W3C 
process -- the latter was an editorial suggestion from someone else, earlier.


>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.

I have tried to implement your suggestions in the new draft.


>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.

Accepted and done, except for the last sentence.  The latter omission is 
based on your further comment below (although I'm not sure that small 
repetitions like this are necessarily a bad thing.)


>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.

The goal is that the two sections do more or less look at the same 
material, but from different perspectives:  the document-centric viewpoint 
in section 3, and the people and process perspective in section 4.  As I 
said, I'm not sure that small amounts of repetition are a bad thing, but 
will look for and eliminate any gross redundancy.


>7.      Section 4.1.3, 1st para  I’m confused as to what this says. Can 
>you clarify this.

I'll revise and clarify.

Thanks again for the careful reading.

-Lofton.