LC comment for OpsGL : 'Committment Table and its CPs'

Here is a last call comment from lynne rosenthal (lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov) 
on QA Framework : Operational Guidelines (and Examples and Techniques)
received by the LC form system.

Submitted on behalf of: N/A
Comment type: Substantive
The comment applies to: "Guideline 1: Integrate Quality Assurance into Working Group activities."
Comment title: Committment Table and its CPs

Comment:
Remove the Committment Table and CP1.1, 1.2, 1.3.  These items do not add information and are redundant.  To satisfy Level 3 (5 or 7), you must satisfy other checkpoints in the OpsGL.  In fact, if we did our jobs right, Level 3 should equal Conformance Level A (satifying all P1), Level 5 should equal Level Double A, and Level 7 = Triple A.  Isn't it a goal to get WGs to conform to the OpsGL? That would mean that they must satisfy all the P1 checkpoints. Thus, they must have a committment level to P1. So, why do we use a new term - Level 3.

The Table introduces a DOV - called committment level.  The OpsGL does not conform to the SpecGL's CPs that require DoVs to address the relationship to conformance, to other DoVs, etc. 


Proposed resolution : 
Remove the Table and CP1.1, 1.2, 1.3

An alternative to removing the Table is to amend it and move it to either the Introduction section (prior to Guideline section) or an Appendix.  It should be amended by adding an additional column called, 'checkpoint'.  For each row, indicate the checkpoint that applies. 
]]

-- 
This comment was submitted through the lastCall form system,
designed by Martin Duerst and Adapted for the QAWG by Olivier Thereaux.

Received on Sunday, 23 February 2003 16:32:46 UTC