W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2002

21-March-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:26:23 -0500
Message-Id: <p051015b1b8d249108236@[24.200.178.3]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I missed bits because of my phone problems.



QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 21-March-2002
--
Scribe: Karl Dubost (KD)

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)

Regrets:
(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)


Absent:
(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
No new action items

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Mar/0067.html

Agenda:
1.) Roll call
2.) Continued issue#55 processing (per [1])
3.) Adjourn



Minutes:

KD: About a week in QA
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/02/aweekinqa/
	It seems very difficult to motivate people to participate to 
this review.

Aweekinqa
	- Karl Dubost
	- Peter Fawcett
	- Lynne Rosenthal
	- Olivier Théreaux

* In order to ensure impartiality, OT will take over as a moderator when
KD is the writer

Issue 55.
	Must be kept for a wider presence on the telconference.

Checkpoint discussion on QA Framework Guidelines
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020311/qaframe-ops

* Checkpoint 5.2.

In the QA Process document, define a contribution process. [Priority 2]
KG: Is it clear by contribution process? Make a precision on ideas or 
Clarification on the contribution process

Request WG to review and suggest text to clarify what is meant by 
contribution process.

* Checkpoint 5.3.

In the QA Process document, define the licenses applicable to 
submitted test materials. [Priority 2]
KG: two kind of license  vendor submitted test materials, publisher 
test materials. Checkpoint is not clear on the type of license.
MS: priority 1
LR: we don't need an example here.
OT: How we define license for submission process if there is no 
submission process.
KG: Someone can contribute a full TS without contribution process.
LR: exemple of XML TS, here is the TS and give it completely. And 
from this point we will come up with a contribution process, but 
maybe at the first part we have a possibility to give something.
Kyrill: Explanations should point to the example documents and have 
explanations for specific cases.

---> Examples will be in the Examples & Techniques document

* Checkpoint 5.4.

In QA Process document, define review procedures for submitted test 
materials. [Priority 2]
KG: Priority is fine. We can have priority 3. review procedure is not formal.
LR: It should be documented. How are you going to review etc.
MS/LR: Priority 2 because you have to explain why you

---> you have to explain why you reject a submission. Clear and open process. 
Example will be moved to the Example&Techniques document.

* Checkpoint 6.1.

Ensure a secure and reliable repository location for future test 
materials. [Priority 2]
KG: P1 being sure to have a reliable repository.
LR: We don't care if it's private, so we should know if it's open or private.
Should we have another checkpint or should we detail this one. Do we 
need the word future.
Kyrill:

--> Remove the word future, and add something on public, Open or private


* Checkpoint 6.2.

In the QA Process document, define the licenses applicable to 
published test materials. [Priority 2]
KG: propose P1
LR: W3C need license?
OT: yes
LR: We all agree. P1

* Checkpoint 6.3.

In the QA Process document, describe how the test materials will be 
published and point to the corresponding web page. [Priority 2]
Kyrill: remove the checkpoint.
Discussion
LR: It's strongly recommended to not publish in TR space.

Request WG review the explanation and provide any suggestions.


* Checkpoint 6.4.

Provide a disclaimer regarding the use of the test materials for 
compliance verification. [Priority 2]
MS:  P1 for two reasons - if not having a disclaimer may open W3C up 
to litigation, better to put in.  Also, not an onerous task to do
KG: agree
LR: does it apply to validator?
MS: we made the distinction for validators.  For now, compliance 
validation is syntax validation is not only correct.
LR: You should add a disclaimer TS or validator.
KG: you can't be sure of the validator and TS
MS: agree
LR: definition of TMaterials is defined in the Introduction of this 
document. We provide a disclaimer for TS or Test Materials.

==> QA Glossary [1] - http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary


* Checkpoint 6.5.

  In the QA Process document, describe how vendors can publish test 
results for their products, if applicable. [Priority 3]
KG: vendors have license restrictions.
LR: there are various ways of publishing the results:
	- WG, taking out the names
	- vendors publishing themselves
	- NIST publish but after the agreement of vendors.
KG: You provide the mechanisms for vendors to publish
MS: ??,
LR: Provide a mean for reporting for vendors test results.
KD: encouraging inside collectively
Kyrill: Remove vendors and add something on interests.
P3 -> P2

Guideline 7.
Plan the transfer of test materials to W3C if needed.

* Checkpoint 7.1.

If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, perform an 
assessment of their quality. [Priority 2]
MS: what is meant by assessment of their quality - this isn't clear
LR: So, Priority stays at 2 and Come up with a better word than assessment

* Checkpoint 7.2.

If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, identify 
sufficient staff resources to meet the requirements. [Priority 2]
Ms: without ressources you can do it. It must be priority one
MS: Kyrill, it's related to previous cp
	---> P1

* Checkpoint 7.3.

If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, resolve IPR 
questions and reach agreement with the external party that produced 
test materials. [Priority 1]
Fine

* Checkpoint 7.4.

If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, update the QA 
commitments in the Working Group charter if necessary. [Priority 2]
LR: Process difficult
KD: explain the process + pb with the end of life to the WG
LR/KG: Discussion on rechartering.
LR: it should be already there.
KG:
  remove the CP or P3.
LR: Removing it. Consensus
KG: what we should do with that
LR: if possible, capture it in a paragraph and put as part of the 
Guideline 7 explanation

Guideline 8.
Plan for test materials maintenance.

* Checkpoint 8.1.

Maintain contribution and review procedures throughout test 
materials' and standard's entire life cycles. [Priority 3]
OT: I would like to understand. So maybe rewording.
KG: what does that mean? So it would be better to reformulate
OT: yes

* Checkpoint 8.2.

In the Working Group's QA process document, specify a procedure for 
updates of the test materials to track new errata/specification 
versions. [Priority 2]
No comment

* Checkpoint 8.3.

In the Working Group's QA process document, identify the 
communication channel and procedure for appeals of tests validity. 
[Priority 2]
Done


Lynne Rosenthal Questios:
+ Any further comments
	nope
+ Anybody want on Chapter 3. - Discuss it later.

Move the bi-weekly schedule. Skip next week. and start week after.
Move to April 4 for next telconf


-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 13:26:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT