【正文】 Column Description Origin development phase in which the defect was introduced Type ? missing (something needs to be there but is not) ? wrong (something is erroneous or conflicts with something else) ? extra (something unnecessary is present) ? usability ? performance ? nondefect issue (question, point of style, suggestion, clarification needed) Severity ? major (could cause product failure or cost significantly more to correct in the future) ? minor (nonfatal error, cosmetic problem, annoyance, or a workaround is available) Location page and line or section number where the defect is located Description concise description of the issue or possible defect Table 3. Possible Appraisals of Inspected Work Products. Appraisal Meaning Accepted As Is Modifications may be required in the work product, but verification of the modification is not necessary. Accept Conditionally Defects must be corrected, and the changes must be verified by the individual named on the Inspection Summary Report. Reinspect Following Rework A substantial portion of the product must be modified, or there are many changes to make. A second inspection is required after the author has pleted rework. Inspection Not Completed A significant fraction of the planned material was not inspected, or the inspection was terminated for some reason. Task Responsible Rework 1. Correct defects and typos found, resolve issues raised, and modify work product accordingly. Mark issues list to indicate action taken. Author 2. Correct any other project documents based on defects identified in the inspected work product. Author 3. Record any uncorrected defects in the project’s defect tracking system. Author 4. If rework verification is not needed, report the number of major and minor defects found and corrected and the actual rework effort to the moderator. Author 5. Record the actual rework effort on the Inspection Summary Report. Moderator Peer Review Process Description anization Page 8 Task Responsible FollowUp 1. Confirm that the author has addressed every item on the Issue Log. Determine whether the author made appropriate decisions as to which defects not to correct and which improvement suggestions not to implement. Verifier 2. Examine the modified work product to judge whether the rework has been performed correctly. Report any findings to the author, so rework can be declared plete, incorrect rework can be redone, or items that were not originally pursued can be addressed. Verifier 3. Report the number of major and minor defects found and corrected and the actual rework effort to the moderator. Author 4. Check whether the exit criteria for the inspection and for the peer review process have been satisfied. If so, the inspection is plete. Moderator 5. Check the baselined work product into the project’s configuration management system. Author 6. Deliver Inspection Summary Report and counts of defects found and defects corrected to peer review coordinator. Author Deliverables 1. Baselined work product 2. Completed Inspection Summary Report 3. Completed Issue Log 4. Completed Typo Lists 5. Counts of defects found and defects corrected Exit Criteria ? All of the author’s inspection objectives are satisfied. ? Issues raised during the inspection are tracked to closure. ? All major defects are corrected. ? Uncorrected defects are logged in the project’s defect tracking system. ? The modified work product is checked into the project’s configuration management system. ? If changes were required in earlier project deliverables, those deliverables have been correctly modified, checked into the project’s configuration management system, and any necessary regression tests were passed. ? Moderator has collected and recorded the inspection data. ? Moderator has delivered the pleted Inspection Summary Report and defect counts to the peer review coordinator. Peer Review Process Description anization Page 9 7. Walkthrough Procedure Participants The author selects the participants in a walkthrough. No specific roles are assigned. Entry Criteria ? The author selected a walkthrough review approach for the product being reviewed. ? The author has stated his or her objectives for the review. Tasks Task Responsible 1. Select review participants, obtain their agreement to participate, and schedule a walkthrough meeting. Author 2. Distribute work product to reviewers prior to the meeting. Author 3. Describe the work product to the reviewers during the meeting in any appropriate way. Lead discussion on the topics of interest or concerns about the work product. Author 4. Present ments, poss