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

Re: [FINAL] 04-April-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:21:20 +0200
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, Philippe Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
To: Jack Morrison <Jack.Morrison@sun.com>
Message-Id: <1D16D3B4-50BF-11D6-B068-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
one comment inlined

On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:00 , Jack Morrison wrote:

> [...]
> 49 - Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and 
> distribution of test materials?
> CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test suite license and it was quite 
> restrictive. He is working on rewording it and when done feels we might 
> be able to use it. Lofton to split this issue into two:
> 59 - licenses under which external contributions are accepted by WG;
> 49 - licenses under which WG provides its test materials to the public;
> Dimitris to provide proposed wording on how external tests are to be 
> accepted by the WG.
>
[dd] This issue is being looked into by the DOM WG chair as well, let me 
coordinate and get back to this list.

> Next Telcon:
>
> LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 4/08. It was 
> felt that in order to have documents ready prior to the AC meeting that 
> another a couple of special calls might be needed. The meeting was 
> scheduled for Thursday, 4/11/02 at 2:00EST. The agenda will be to 
> review the Specification Guidelines, using the same baisc format used 
> for the Operational Guidelines checkpoints.
>
> Next Meeting
> Thursday, April 11, 2002
> 2PM EST
>
> Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FINAL MINUTES
> QA Working Group Teleconference
>
> Friday, 4-April-2002
>
> Scribe: Jack Morrison
>
> Attendees:
>
> (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
>
> (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
>
> (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
>
> (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
>
> (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
>
> (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
>
> (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
>
> Dave Marston
>
> Regrets:
>
> (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
>
> (DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
>
> (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
>
> Absent:
>
> (PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
>
> (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
>
> (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
>
> Summary of New Action Items:
>
> A-2002-04-04-1 - KD  update next week on F2F status
>
> A-2002-04-04-2 - LH  reserve bridge for next meeting
>
> A-2002-04-04-3 - OT  Resolve issue of central bibliography in QA 
> Framework: Introduction
>
> A-2002-04-04-4  LH  split Issue 49 into two separate issues.
>
> A-2002-04-04-5  KG  clarification of conformance section in OG
>
> A-2002-04-04-6  dd  provide proposed wording on how external tests 
> are to be accepted by the WG
>
> Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-
> wg/2002Apr/0012.html
>
> Minutes:
>
> Housekeeping Items:
>
> 1.	Discussed that those editing the website using Amaya need to be 
> careful about document types as under some circumstances the editor 
> will change the type from Strict to Transitional. Also, the AI list is 
> out of date and needs to be updated (see below).
> 2.	Discussed adjusting the meeting time to allow Asia and Europe to 
> participate at more reasonable times. Postponed any decision until next 
> week as most members from Europe were unable to attend today.
> 3.	Karl is working on organizing the next F2F, should have more 
> information next week,
>
> QA Framework Document Schedule:
>
> 1.	The editors felt they would be able to post the latest drafts this 
> weekend, WG only, including the two new documents.
> 2.	The original goal was to have the first Technical Report for ALL 
> the documents done by early April, but postponed it by a month. There 
> was some discussion about whether or not we could be ready before the 
> next AC meeting, and we were reminded that we need to meet the pre-AC 
> publication deadline, which as a week or so earlier than the meeting. 
> DD felt the Specification Guidelines (3A) might not be ready, but that 
> the Operational Guidelines (2A) would. It was asked that the editors 
> think about whether Operational Examples and Techniques (2B) could be 
> moved up so the first draft was before the AC deadline.
>
> Issues:
>
> The rest of the meeting dealt with a review of the Issues List.
>
> 42 - Where should the Taxonomy document be kept?
>
> CLOSED - After some discussion it was agreed that for now this could 
> stay as a separate document.
>
> 20 - Should the QA WG web page have a central bibliography index to 
> notes and other documents?
>
> CLOSED  Olivier to resolve.
>
> 24 - Appeal process when QA WG rejects a request from WG
>
> POSTPONED  Was discussed if this needed to be in the QA process 
> documentation. Postponed until Issue 53 is resolved.
>
> 33 - Guideline for minimum level of WG commitment to QA
>
> CLOSED  the table has been revised but level 3 is still the minimum
>
> 37 - Coordination of QA work with external entities
>
> CLOSED  See Chapter 3 of OG
>
> 38 - Resolutions of external QA requests
>
> CLOSED  See Chapter 3 of OG
>
> 28 - Test maintenance task force
>
> CLOSED  See Guideline 8
>
> 29 - Should there be a checkpoint about publication of testing results?
>
> CLOASED  See Guideline 6.7
>
> 40 - Test Materials home
>
> CLOSED  The overlap between documents has been resolved.
>
> 17 - Where should conformance test materials reside after a WG disbands?
>
> CLOSED 
>
> 19 - Should each Framework document have a "Glossary" appendix?
>
> CLOSED  The Introduction explains some terms and points to a QA 
> Glossary. Agreed we would take out the reference, as long as everyone 
> dealt with defining terms when they first used them. Currently this is 
> not in the Specification Guidelines.
>
> 57 - Use of RFC2119 in Operational Guidelines
>
> CLOSED - This was discussed at length, and a number of examples were 
> reviewed. The conclusion was that "Should = Must, unless you have a 
> very good reason why not". Agreed on recommendation "b) Keep using the 
> keywords and specify in the conformance clause that for each subset of 
> checkpoints having the same priority, keywords "MUST", "SHOULD", etc. 
> in the checkpoint text and in the description text must be honored as 
> prescribed in [RFC2119]." Kirill to add clarification to conformance 
> section for next public draft.
>
> 39 - Use of Keywords SHOULD, SHALL, etc
>
> OPEN  Agreed that for the next public draft (after the WG drafts), we 
> must review the guidelines and checkpoints for normative usage.
>
> 49 - Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and 
> distribution of test materials?
>
> CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test suite license and it was quite 
> restrictive. He is working on rewording it and when done feels we might 
> be able to use it. Lofton to split this issue into two:
>
> 59 - licenses under which external contributions are accepted by WG;
>
> 49 - licenses under which WG provides its test materials to the public;
>
> Dimitris to provide proposed wording on how external tests are to be 
> accepted by the WG.
>
> Next Telcon:
>
> LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 4/08. It was 
> felt that in order to have documents ready prior to the AC meeting that 
> another a couple of special calls might be needed. The meeting was 
> scheduled for Thursday, 4/11/02 at 2:00EST. The agenda will be to 
> review the Specification Guidelines, using the same baisc format used 
> for the Operational Guidelines checkpoints.
>
> Next Meeting
>
> Thursday, April 11, 2002
>
> 2PM EST
>
> Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
>
>
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 18:21:22 GMT

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