W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Fwd: DRAFT Minutes 2001-12-20 QA Working Group Teleconfere

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:57:55 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011222145522.032b0950@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Cc: "Lynne Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
I'm forwarding these for Lynne.  Lynne will accept changes and corrections 
for a week and then recirculate "final" at the end of next week (~12/28)...

>Please review and send me any changes, additions, etc.
>Happy Holidays
>Lynne
>***************************************
>
>DRAFT Minutes 2001-12-20 QA Working Group Teleconference
>
>Attendees:
>(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
>(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
>(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
>(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
>(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
>(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
>(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
>(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
>(DM) David Marston (Lotus)
>
>Regrets:
>Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
>Selim Aissi (Intel)
>
>Absent:
>(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
>(DB) Karl DuBost (W3C, WG co-chair)
>(MF) Max Froumentin (W3C - XSLT)
>(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
>(RL) Rob Lanphier (Real Networks)
>(CO) Carbo Oriol (U. of Edinburgh)
>(GO) Gerald Oskoboiny (W3C - systems)
>
>Summary of Action Items
>A-2001-12-20-1: Lofton to reserve permanent time slot and ZAKIM bridge
>A-2001-12-20-2: Lofton to initiate the Issues list by converting current 
>issues into the XML Grammar+XSLT
>A-2001-12-20-3:Lofton, Kirill, Dimitris and All: further develop Proc&Ops 
>section 2.6  relationship with other WGs
>
>A-2001-12-06-1: Kirill, Lofton, Dimitris:  discuss work load line: Done
>A-2001-12-06-2: Kirill, Lofton, Dimitris: discuss timeline: Done
>A-2001-12-06-3: All: review documents: Ongoing.  More feedback needed
>A-2001-12-06-4: Karl, Daniel: bridge for 12/20 telconf: Done
>A-2001-12-06-5: Dimitris: send source-forge pointer: Done
>A-2001-12-06-6: All: issues tracking discussion: Completed today
>A-2001-12-06-7: Dom, Karl, Olivier: web site re-org: Ongoing
>
>(from Brussels  open actions only)
>A-2001-11-12-2: Olivier: unified glossary: Send email on status
>A-2001-11-12-3: Karl, Daniel: QA glossary: Pending
>A-2001-11-12-4: Kirill: Serialized Infoset pointer: In progress
>A-2001-11-13-2: Max: MathML validator: Unkown
>A-2001-11-13-3: Karl: review of XML Fragment in Matrix: Unknown
>A-2001-11-13-4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Karl: updates to Matrix: Unknown
>A-2001-11-13-10: Daniel: errata life after REC: Unknown
>A-2001-11-13-11: Lofton, Kirill: collect technical data: Pending
>A-2001-11-13-12, 13: Karl, Daniel: glossary and taxonomy: Unknown
>A-2001-11-13-14: Olivier: glossary: Ongoing
>A-2001-11-13-16: Daniel: check with other groups that model works: Unknown
>A-2001-11-13-17: Lynne, Daniel: certification paper: Pending, sent to 
>Daniel to progress
>
>Previous Telcon Minutes:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Dec/0017.html
>
>***********************************
>Discussion
>
>1.      Review Action Items (see above)
>
>2.      Approval of permanent bi-weekly telconf time
>All agree on Thursday, at 1400 Eastern Time (1900 GMT)
>OT request ZAKIM be reserved.  If not available, the time slot takes 
>precedence.
>Action LH  time slot get ZAKIM permanent bridge
>
>3.  QA at Cannes Tech Plenary
>LH - there is proposed content for Wed's Plenary and agenda for Friday's 
>meeting.  Any suggestions for topics? Need for Outreach during the week's 
>meeting, in which there are liaisons with other functional and horizontal 
>groups.  Want to be perceived as helpful and useful to other WG.  Postpone 
>further discussion since DD unavailable and should be part of discussion.
>
>Poll take of who will be at Cannes:
>LH, LR, DH  plan to be there all week.
>dd  will be in DOM meetings part of the week
>OT, PF  working on approval
>  MS  arrive on Wed
>
>4. Issues Tracking
>Email discussion included pointers to SourceForge 
>(http://sourceforge.net/) with an example at 
>http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=377744&group_id=23194&func=browse
>XML Protocol is using an XML Grammar with XSLT for procuding a presentable 
>formal (HTML table) see: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/DOM-Level-2-issues This 
>is also being used by DOM Level 2.
>
>PF  has recently started to use source forge tracking software.
>dd  DOM TS not dealt with issues tracking.  Issues have been discussed and 
>resoved via the mail exploder. Haven't really used the SourceForge 
>tracking system.
>DH W3C member version of tracking software not available yet.
>LH  need something immediately: 2 choices- both make for nice 
>presentation, well organized, hyperlink tables .   Sourceforge allows one 
>to distinguish between an admin vs general member.  Admin types are only 
>ones that can initiate, enter a new issue and change its status.  General 
>member can submit comments into issue.
>OT  admin must validate, but anyone can generate/submit issue.  PF concur.
>OT  sourceforge may be better, but not know if it is possible to move from 
>sourceforge to somewhere else.  Is there any serialization or export?
>dd  this was my action item.  No answer yet. Seems that they would have 
>some export format, but nothing confirmed as yet.
>LH - another consideration  is the rampup or learning curve.  If use the 
>XML grammar, need to modify the DTD and XSLT
>dd  some people are not technically oriented, and they would have learning 
>curve.  With sourceforge, have a web interface.
>DH  issues are sent to the mail list and someone else is responsible for 
>putting it into the XML document.
>dd  the W3C issue tracking software is in beta test - what about that?
>DH - It works, would probably fit our needs, but main drawback not 
>available yet.  If we
>LH  manually or is there a way to import?
>OT  think it can be done automatically with XSLT. But there may be some 
>manual work needed
>LH  no matter what tool, an issues editor/administrator will be needed to 
>control the ultimate content.  And take email submissions and enter into 
>issue log  may be log it in, give number and link to email. The learning 
>curve is more for issues editor, than the general public. Which would make 
>better transition  XML grammar or sourceforge?
>PF  seems that XML grammar maybe better. We use XML ourselves and know 
>what is in it.  The burden is on whoever is doing the editing.  Submitter 
>part is easy  just filling out a form
>dd  if go XML grammar, we may indirectly end up working with the email and 
>not use the issues list.  This is not a major issue; we can solve issues 
>via email, although it is difficult to keep track of threads on email.
>LH  any difficulty pointing from sourceforge to W3C mail archive
>dd  no problem
>LH  There doesn't seem to be a strong conviction either way.  Lets take a 
>straw poll preference. Choices:  XML grammar, sourceforge, or a hybred, 
>like SVG's text file
>
>Result of  Straw poll  XML grammar preferred.
>LH  Take the first 12 issues and convert them.  Seems that there will be 
>less of a learning curve using the XML grammar.  Any volunteers to be the 
>Issues Editor?  In lieu of KD  I will take the initial start.
>RESOLUTION: Issues tracking will be done using the XML grammar + XSLT
>ACTION  LH to initiate issues list via the XML Grammar
>dd  Also need to including taking issues from email.
>
>5.  Framework Document
>LH, KG, dd  editors, had email exchanges and telcons.
>LH-  Summary of editor's discussions: Endorsed the partition of the 
>documents as set in last teleconf.  Discussed the boundary of 
>documents  what goes in one document vs another document.  The goal was to 
>make the partition boundary clear, so that can get busy writing 
>text.  There are 7 documents now  4 major documents: Intro, Proc&Ops, 
>Spec, and Tech Guideline; with 2 documents for each category (except 
>Intro) - a  guideline and checklist document and a techniques/example 
>document. Believe we can have 1st WD by week after next teleconf. (week of 
>jan 7).  At next teleconf, will have revision of first 2 drafts posted on 
>the website and make that the major topic of the teleconf.  Wee will take 
>those changes and revise documents and then put documents into TR 
>space.  dd has created a discussion draft  to record a refinement of the 
>definitions of the parts of the Framework Doc Family.  Parts of this will 
>also go into the Intro Framework  which will contain a roadmap of the Doc 
>Family.
>
>dd  present discussion of draft.  Under Proc&Ops, too much weight is on 
>the QA WG/IG  we need to discuss how people from the QA can work with the 
>WG and IG of other W3C.    The Intro is a short description of activity, 
>charters, brief roadmap to QA activity and deliverables.  The Proc&Ops 
>there already is a detail discussion of WG and IG and how QA fits into W3C 
>in general.  It is also appropriate to discuss how to initiate contact 
>with other chairs of WG and how the QA members can work within their 
>respective WGs.
>LH  in the toc, there is a placeholder for WG relationships.  Is this 
>something that should be refined further and put into document before 1st 
>Work Draft?
>dd  good idea to state what it is we want to do and the type of 
>relationship we would like to see. As a WD, it will be discussed within 
>the various WGs.
>LH  The advantage of taking a stab with liaisons or representation within 
>the WG, is that it is out a month before the tech plenary and can be 
>discussed there.
>KGl  we need to keep track of issues (on the issues list) as more 
>activities originate within the WGs.  Need to present the list of 
>questions that we need to still decide.  State it such that the WGs can 
>tell us how they want to interact with us.
>dd  the fact is that we want relationships with other groups, is not 
>necessary in other groups charters. How much representation do they want 
>to see? Need to ask chairs to comment on this section  which asks how do 
>they want to cooperate with us, rather than say outright how we want them 
>to cooperate with us.
>LH  Lets have a discussion of this section via email, before putting it 
>directly into the document.  Circulate in pieces and ask for comments.
>dd  if distribute in fragments or pieces, we may want to have links to 
>other parts, which explain what all this is about.
>LH  lets agree on text internally in the next three weeks, before sending 
>to the chairs. ACTION   further flush out section 2.6  WG relationship to 
>QA Activity and activities.
>KG  Can start drafting after Dec 26.  Should this circulate on IG list or 
>chairs?
>LH - Not to chairs yet.  Lets agree within QAWG first, before circulating 
>to Chairs.
>LH  any more discussion of dd's draft?  dd will you refine the 
>document?  Propose that document go forward sooner than later, since 
>chunks of it will be put into the Intro.
>dd yes.  Will refine based on other documents.  Will spend some time on 
>Proc&Ops.  By Sunday, should have an email
>LH  anyone else interested in getting involved in this or other areas? 
>Contributions are welcome to help get a draft that will be discussed at 
>the next teleconf
>LH - for next teleconf, we will generate issues and go through the 
>document on an issue by issue basis
>dd  I'll start making one liners and enumerate issues.
>LH  lets also go forward with drafting. Will try to organize the work such 
>that there is a list of contentious places that we want to discuss.
>
>Adjourn
>25 past the hour.
Received on Sunday, 23 December 2001 08:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:08 GMT