Minutes QAWG Teleconference, 18-11-2002

QA Working Group Teleconference

Monday, 18-November-2002

--

Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk 

 

Attendees:

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(DM) David Marston (IBM, invited guest)

 

Regrets: 

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)

 

Late regrets: 

(JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun)

 

 

Summary of New Action Items: 

 

AI-20021118-1  Lofton to generate the placeholder for the OpsET for the TR(done)

AI-20021118-3  Lynne send out a revised version of the QA Process document by COB Thursday(done)

AI-20021118-4  Lofton to record and issue on whether the Level's table form is appropriate in OpsGd. Initiate the discussion regarding the table

AI-20021118-5  Lofton to reword CP3.1 from Ops Guildelines to reflect that we want to bind specification and QA deliverables publications

AI-20021118-6  Lofton to record and issue on adding a fulfillment criteria for each row in the Level's table in OpsGd.

 

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0072.html

Previous Telcon Minutes: 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0040.html

 

1) roll call, 11am (EST)

 

2.) OpsET placeholder in /TR/ [1]

        - Need QAWG approval to publish such.

Approved unanimously. Action item Lofton to generate the placeholder.

 

3.) QAPD outline from Lynne [2]

Lynne: presenting the draft. Request WG to review for the parts that are missing and parts that should not be there. 

Review will be scheduled for the next week. Need to decide on who will be the editor for this document.

 

Sandra: How does this document relates to the Process document we're asking WGs to make? 

 

Lynne: This is the Process document that we're asking for.

 

Kirill: We're asking other WGs to produce QA Process document. Our document is a general process document - extension to the W3C Process document.

 

Lofton: This is where the question lies. It might not be appropriate to point to it from our QA Process Examples and Techniques. 

 

Sandra: If we draw a distinction between a general WG Process document and a QA Process document, then we don't have this issue.

 

Further discussion continued. Decided to discuss next Monday.

 

Lynne - action item to send out a revised version by COB Thursday.

 

4.) Ops Guidelines [3]

        - Clarify AI-20021010-04 (reshape issue 15) [5]

Discussed

        - next WG version (schedule)

Agreed that for the Spec GL we don't have a commitment to do a new WG version. For Ops GL we will republish.

        - visit/discuss "@@" issue points, per [4]

Lofton: Level's Table. Is Level 4 is an appropriate form? Columns in the levels table are independent, but are tightly linked together.Action item for Lofton to record and issue and initiate the discussion regarding the table.

 

Lofton: record an issue for adding a fulfillment criteria for each row in the table.

 

Lofton: Discussing CP2.3.

 

Lynne: suggested to change MUST to MAY. Agreed

 

Sandra: Why are we making a distinction between the existing and the future WGs?

 

Lofton: Discussing 3.1

 

Kirill: There may be a difference between the milestones and specification drafts. May be get rid of milestones?

 

Lofton: Why don't I reword it to reflect that we want to bind specification and QA deliverables publications?

All agreed. Lofton has an Action Item to reword the text.

 

Adjourned at 12am EST.

 

Previous Telcon Minutes:  

 

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0045.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0056.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/qaframe-ops-20021111

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0064.html

[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x15