1. TSA2.2 QC Change Management
SA2 F2F
Amsterdam

2. QC QC relations Definition Verification Quality Control Operations
Comm.
User
Comm. QC
UMD
Roadmap
Verif. & SR TP

3. QC  Verification (I)
QC releases every 6 months (along with UMD roadmap)
Stable documents for TP and verification.
Announcement of new versions at EGI wiki, TCB and software quality task force
Release notes with most relevant information
Only one QC Release is active at a given moment
Current Release DocDB #240

4. QC  Verification (II) How to assure correct QC are used?
Dissemination of latest version to interested parties (TP and SA2.3) through the available communication channels
Is that enough?
Watermark the non active documents?
Provide only online versions?

5. QC  Verification (III)
QC is an iterative and constant process
6 months releases ensure stability for verification and TP
TPs and TSA2.3 need to anticipate changes
New tests must be developed
New verification templates must be created
Proposal:
DRAFT documents updated periodically every 2 months
Should allow all stakeholders to plan their efforts

6. Definition QC Need a way to track all changes in QC documents
Release notes of QC releases with most relevant changes
History field of each criterion records changes
Include in each criterion a new Source field with the actual source

7. QC Change Sources External (to SA2.2) sources :
Requirements from User Community
Requirements from Operations Community
Especially software incidences found in production
Verification and Stage Roll-out of products
Internal (to SA2.2) sources:
Analysis of UMD Capabilities (i.e. creation of initial criteria for new capabilities)
Review of existing criteria, analysis of received feedback

8. QC Source Tracking External sources Internal sources
Requirements from Users  RT ticket of requirement
Requirements from Operations Community  RT and/or GGUS tickets
Verification and Stage Roll-out of products  verification/SR summaries
Internal sources
Analysis of capabilities  reference(s) used in the analysis
Review  history field is enough, it should already have a source.