W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Ops-GL: Couple comments on priorities

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:39:04 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030513172544.01ed0ae0@rockynet.com>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 06:23 PM 5/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
>At 12:40 PM 5/13/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>At 08:06 AM 5/12/03 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>Cp2.3. Request allocation of QA resources to the Working Group. [Priority 1]
>>>
>>>I d suggest downgrading this one to Pri2.
>>>
>>>Rationale:
>>>This may not be implementable/manageable for Working Groups of too small 
>>>and too large size(XMLP).
>>>In some cases W3C has to impose a limitation on the number of 
>>>participants in the WG.
>>
>>Clarification please?
>>
>>Can you give examples where W3C has imposed limits, or point me to 
>>something in the W3C Process document?  I have heard talk about a de 
>>facto limit of 2-people-per-company on WGs, but I don't know where it 
>>comes from.
>
>There was discussion about this at a prior AC meeting.  When discussing 
>attracting more people to the QAWG Paul Cotton said it would violate W3C 
>process to assign more than 2 people to a WG.

I don't think this is in the W3C Process.  I just did a quick scan.  I 
found this quote in 4.2.2:  "* Each Member organization or group of related 
Members must only be allowed one vote, even though each Member may have 
several participants in the group."

Even so, I wouldn't consider that a compelling argument to downgrade CP2.3 
from P1 to P2.  Quoting CP2.3 ConfReq:

"Conformance requirements: a new or rechartering Working Group MUST, in its 
Call for Participation, request that participating members allocate some 
staffing resources specifically for QA work. An existing Working Group MAY 
make external appeal for QA-specific resources in one of various other ways."

Note "request" instead of "require".  Do we really think it is not 
essential to start soliciting QA specialists when the WG is 
forming?  (Experience in SVG:  every one joins to invent the cool things; 
few to none have any interest in test suites, interop, etc.).  Another way 
to look at it:

P1:  critical/essential
P2:  important/desirable

Which fits?

-Lofton.


>>In any case, you're argument boils down to:  if there were a limit on WG 
>>size, then we should allow the WG throw out the QA staffing?  Or 
>>actually, to throw out the *request* for dedicated QA 
>>specialists?  (Remember, this is about asking for QA specialists in the 
>>Call for Participation.)
>>
>>I don't like it. I think P1 is appropriate.
>>
>>-Lofton.
>
>****************************************************************
>Mark Skall
>Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
>Information Technology Laboratory
>National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
>100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
>Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
>
>Voice: 301-975-3262
>Fax:   301-590-9174
>Email: skall@nist.gov
>****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 19:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:21 UTC