Talk:Software quality assurance/Archives/2013

Content reuse permission
I am the owner of SQA.net and anything I place here (from my site) is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:

I will send an email to this effect also, this applies only to what is published on Wikipedia.

My intention is to build up a consistent definition between Software Quality Assurance, Software Quality Control (includes test and measurement) Software process Improvement and Software Metrics.

This issue with providing multiple (as there are in the world) definitions of SQA in a more elaborate form is that the relationship with other terms is then a complicated metrics.

In essence SQA is about audit and verifying conformance to an agreed set of policies, procedures and standards. This is distinct from the goals of SQA and Software Process Improvement that SQA plays a vital but not exclusive role. This is how I have started and it will be built up, if I get permission to keep posting in this fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intray (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you for your response. One further question: do you have any references for the the work your are looking to copy over here from SQA.net? Or is that material an essay stating your own opinions on SQA? I ask, because the only reference I see at SQA.net is to a NASA document, and that only in the introduction. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which would preclude posting unreferenced personal opinion here. I'd hate to see you put a lot of effort into moving material into this article only to see it be deleted.
 * P.S. In future, please sign you talk-page posts (place ~ at the end of your post - this will automatically insert your signature at that point). --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Allan, I am new to this protocol. The Website SQA.net is not original research, what I do is link standard definitions together, with explanations, in order to make a comprehensive definition of SQA terms. The main references I would use are from NASA and other well establised sources, which I will cite. My additional commentary is only to explain the definition, as the definitions themselves are typically given out of context and appear recursive (i.e. Software Quality Assurance is about Assuring Quality of Software). Also the relationships with other definitions (Quality Control, Process Improvement etc.) is also a key part of the basic definition that I try to elaborate on. I will also consider the format here, to build somwething that is not a mirror subset of my website, although this will take time but will be worthwhile for Wikipedia. I have used my real name, in the signature. Thanks again for the guidance.

Ian-Fleming 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my webasite SQA Definition for the historical context of SQA although an examination of the formal Quality Assurance definition, for manufacturing, and the definition and SQA would serve the same purpose and I can expand here rather than cite my website if this is preffered. For the issues of measuring the cost\benefit of software (i.e. showing the problem of taking the manufacturing definition) then the classic "No Silver Bullet" is appropriate.

Ian-Fleming 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Wikipedia to promote your own personal website is generally frowned upon (see WP:NOT and WP:EL). Nor is SQA.net really an acceptable reference under the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. On that basis, I have removed the links to SQA.net. IMHO, using a link to another Wikipedia article as a reference doesn't really meet the spirit of WP:V - I'd prefer to see something more explicit than a pointer to the No Silver Bullet article. A reference to Brooks' book might be appropriate, unless something better presents itself. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is how the definition for Software Quality begins, on Wikipedia "When applied to software the adjective quality may apply to source code as seen by software developers". Please forgive my efforts to raise the bar here. I will continue on my own site to build a definition of SQA, that adds value to the general SQA community. Regarding promoting my site, just type SQA in google and my site ranks number 4, just above IBM (and has held that position for over a year). That said I wish you well, you seem to have good intentions. Please delete my posts and I withdraw permission to use any of my 'original' material from SQA.net.

Ian-Fleming 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. I do appreciate your efforts to raise the bar. I just want to make sure those efforts conform to Wikipedia policies (which exist for good reason). --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's odd that one editor is making such a mess of things. SQA.net is a bad site, but that doesn't change the use of the term or what it means. As I suggested when I removed the request for facts, check out StickyMinds, the industry's leader in testing and QA. There are too many articles on the topic and I'm not about to decide which is the best one to use to define things. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's not a fact. I have brought this article into the fold of the software development project. --Walter Görlitz 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you consider something common knowledge doesn't mean that the text about in Wikipedia it doesn't need to be traceable to a reference of some kind, so that readers who don't share that common knowledge can have some assurance that what they read is correct. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)