- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:39:29 -0600
- To: www-qa@w3.org
At 04:40 PM 4/29/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>This is probably the most significant of the OpsGL issues, and is the only
>real issue group where we had lots of comments. For email discussion, and
>the agenda of the next OpsGL telecon.
>
>Ref: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
>
>Last Call Issues: 3, 60.2, 72.2, 72.3, 83, 107
>
>[...]
>Proposal
>=====
>Replace Checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 with three new checkpoints. [...]
The resolution from today's telecon is slightly different than
Proposal. It still removes the table as a feature of OpsGL. But it
replaces old-CP1.1 - 1.3 with:
CP1.1: Define QA commitment for operations, specifications, and test
materials. [Priority 1]
ConfReq: the WG MUST:
* define its commitment level to OpsGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
* for any Recommendations that it intends to produce, define its
commitment level to SpecGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
* for any Test Materials that it intends to produce or adopt,
define its commitment level to TestGL -- A, AA, or AAA;
* define its commitment to produce or adopt at least some test
materials for each of the WG's specifications before it becomes
Recommendation;
[...additional blither, as in current spec, about new versus existing
working groups satisfy "define"...]
CP1.2: Commit to complete test materials. [Priority 3]
ConfReq: the WG MUST commit to produce or adopt a complete Test Materials
before Recommendation, where complete is defined as: at least one test case
for every identifiable conformance requirement of the specification.
Explanation
=====
The first three bullets of CP1.1 allow the WG to make different commitment
levels to the different QA aspects of its life, as opposed to the
(undesirabled) "uniform" aspect of the Proposal.
The 4th bullet preserves the table's requirement that at P1 & P2 (up
through level 5), there be *some* TM for each Rec, and CP1.2 preserves the
table's requirement that at P3 (level 6/7) there be *complete* TM. (This
was also a feature of Proposal.).
Alternative: It might be cleaner to split out 4th bullet of above-CP1.1 as
new-CP1.2 (Priority 1), and then above-CP1.2 becomes new-CP1.3 (Priority 3).
Opinions?
Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 14:37:18 UTC