- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:05:32 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Lofton's latest proposal (excerpted): >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; > * ...SpecGL -- A, AA, or AAA; > * ...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; LH>Alternative: It might be cleaner to split out 4th bullet of above LH>CP1.1 as new-CP1.2 (Priority 1)... I like the alternative, because when I read this, I see * pick a quantum level * pick a quantum level * pick a quantum level * commit to have some TM; zero not allowed where the 4th bullet breaks the parallel structure. Some specs morph drastically from charter time to CR, so I think that the WG can't make a charter-time commitment that will be measurable at a certain level of detail. Let's split out the 4th one just because it will have a separate criterion for attainment. .................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 16:06:21 UTC