This document explains what is our plan to conduct a successfull CR phase for the QA Ops Guidelines and to gather the experience on implementations of these guidelines.
On the planning side, we need to identify which WGs are willing to commit to applying the guidelines to their process. By applying, we don't mean to say "comply" but only going thru the Ops checklist and report to the QAWG what they think they're already doing, what they expect to do in the future (and by when), and what they don't expect to do (with rationales)
The actions and the log of what's happening is available in this document.
We would like by the end of the announced CR period, the 4th Technical Plenary in March 2004, to have at least 5 WGs having done this work and give us their feedback with their rationales.
In order to achieve that, we will use various means:
Note that this Implementation plan is related but different in nature than the CR exit criteria we have put in the Ops status section: to show wo implementations of each checkpoint.
On the reporting side, there are two different things: first, preliminary reports of Ops GL implementations are already available in the matrix of reviews (member-only), mostly done by the QA WG with the versions of the guidelines before it went to Candidate Recommendation status.
Second, we expect by mid-CR, that is, the end of the year, to report to W3C management how we see our CR effort going, and whether a different methodology for having these guidelines becomes part of the WGs life is necessary.
History of actions presented in reverse order. The latest, the first.
Philippe Le Hégaret on IRC brought the attention to the action items of WSD.
2003-09-18: Philippe, Jonathan to review the QA operational guidelines.
Karl sent an email to invite the WCAG to participate (2nd try). There could be a problem for the WGs to implement the things in real putting a burden on their future with something that could be not stable. We may propose an intermediate solution.
Karl was on the call of OWL WG to present the QA Framework and QA Ops Guidelines. One comment which has been made is "What documents we should start with". We don't know yet if they will try to implement it. They were possiblu talking about a thought experience. Another comment which was made, was that implementing it to try and so modifying their charter had consequences on the WG life. It's a fair question, how do we encourage people to modify important documents knowing that the QA Framework is not stable.
WSD has decided to talk about it [Member only], on their agenda. Karl has been invited on the OWL WG call [Member Only] to explain the QA Ops GL.
The DOM WG has refused to work on it. They don't have enough time and they don't have the resources. We haven't received the official answer. Karl will discuss again with Philippe Le Hégaret and Ray Whitmer
SVG WG, DOM WG and OWL WG have decided to put my request on their agenda. Karl had dinner with Richard Ishida, Martin Duerst and François Yergeau (I18N) to convince them to try to implement it. They seem to be interested, they were more insterested by Spec GL. Karl has said that they could do both and that the Ops GL was maybe the simpler to apply.
Karl Dubost sent a letter to different WGs to invite them to implement the QA Ops Guidelines. The selected WG have been chosen among three categories:
The selected WGs are
On the QA Ops CR Call, the creation of this document has been required to explain our intentions and how we will try to reach the WGs. Daniel Dardailler has drafted the first version of this document. It has been required as well that the QA WG doesn't count in the selected WGs.
Created Date: 2003-09-04 by Dominique
Hazael-Massieux