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

Minutes of QA Working Group Teleconference, 2002-11-25

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 02 Dec 2002 09:59:29 +0100
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1038819571.17523.84.camel@stratustier>
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 25-November-2002
Scribe: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: 
AI-20021125-1: DH to check if AC meeting IRC logs are available and
member accessible, and to send a pointer to the WG if so
AI-20021125-2: LH to make sure GL 4 in OpsGL identify all that needs to
be in a WG Process Doc

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0095.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0087.html [ draft

1) Roll call
See above. JR is a new participant in the WG (more below).


2) Miscellaneous
* LH sent by mistake a copy of the IRC log taken during the AC Meeting
to the public WG mailing list. The message has been expunged from the
archives, but WG members are asked not to forward it.
Since there was some interesting discussions around QA in this AC
meeting, LH ask DH to see if the IRC logs are available and member
accessible, and if so, to send a pointer to the mailing list.

* After a quick strawpoll, the chair decices to cancel the telecons in
the last 2 weeks of December, since most participants wouldn't be

* LH announces that JR is a new participant in the WG and proposes that
each participant of the WG presents him/herself quicly. KD first checks
with JR if Sun's AC Rep is aware of his participation to the QA WG,
since after a discussion with him, KD realized he didn't know there was
any Sun employees participating to the WG. JR explains quickly that his
participation to this WG is probably very temporary since he was just
appointed to replace Jack Morrisson. He precises that due to the current
travel policy at Sun, it was very unlikely he or his successor would
attend Seattle F2F meeting.
Then, everybody on the call makes a short presentation of their
background. JR relation to QA work comes from his participation in the
XSLT conformance committe at OASIS.


3) Draft QA Process Document
LR has integrated most of the last week discussions resolutions into the
QA WG Process Document draft, which consist mostly of an outline of what
the document shoud be:
PF agrees to become the editor of the document and to turn this outline
into a finalized version.
LR presents the draft as being divided into 3 sections: 1st, internal
operations, 2nd external relationships and 3rd Test Materials. The 2
last sections match the requirements set by the OpsGL (CP 4.3 and 5.2)
The internal operations come from various discussions inside the WG, and
completes some aspects already present in the W3C Process Document [W3C
PD] [2] and in the QA WG charter [3]. The goal of the discussion is to
resolve some high level questions.

1. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/
2. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/
3. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/charter

The 1st one is to know whether we want to discuss internal operations at
all. LH asks what part of them are already covered in the W3C PD and in
the charter, especially regarding the quorum question that araised
several times, when more than half the WG members missed a teleconf, for
instance. LR quickly explains what the W3C PD sets (invited experts
role, voting procedures, issues addressing) but shows that it do not
answer some specific questions we had. 
SM stresses this aspect of an internal process document is not requested
in the OpsGL: it is said "A Working Group QA process encompasses all
aspects of QA life within the Working Group", with an enumeration that
only refers to test material oriented items.
LH makes a quick strawpoll to see if people think we should keep this
part of the document. Everybody seems to like it; JR is not sure of the
long term value of it though. There need to be links back to the
charter, also.
LH will open a formal issue for OpsGL to see whether we want to have a
CP for other WG to have a more generic WG Process Document (not only a
QA Process Doc).

Another high level question is to know whether we keep the 3 sections in
a single document or if they should split into 2 or 3 ones. Keeping a
single document seems easier to maintain and nobody objected to it.


4) OpsGL WG draft 
LH has posted a new WG version of the OpsGL [4] and sent a proposal for
issues processing [5]

4. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/qaframe-ops-20021111
5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0082.html

In this proposal, 8 issues that looked like uncontroversial are
distinguished and have already a clear resolution proposal; LH proposes
we adopt them as a batch, unless someone objects. Nobody does, and LH
will integrate the resolutions in the next draft.

Going through the issues that need discussion (see [5]):
- for CP 1.1, LH didn't have time to make a concrete proposal, will try
to do it in the upcoming week but welcomes any suggestion. The issue is
that the progession is not linear, and the 2 columns are not strongly
enough related to make something logical.
- GL 4 verbiage (links to TS Process Doc): LH will take it offline with
Kirill who probably drafted the first version of the text. LR notes that
DOM and XML Core have TS Process Doc that could be linked from there.
- CP 4.3 LH needs to clarify the meaning of the "QA Framework" bullet:
is it just a summary of the 5 following bullets or is it something else?
It appears that the bullet can be removed, but there should be a CP
making sure that a QA Process Document encompasses all the aspects
related to test materials, on which LH takes an AI. 
- still on CP 4.3, there is an open question on whether a QA Process Doc
must be public or not. LH thinks it is more useful if it is public, and
DH points that the W3C Process Doc should be updated "soon" to make it
mandatory that WG chaters are public, in which case this looks like a
logical complement. Since no one disagrees, the CP will make it
mandatory that the document is public
- CP 5.3: LH will see with Kirill offline
- CP 4.6 stacked because of lack of time
- CP 6.2: LH points that there has been an ongoing discussion [6]
between LH, Kirill and Joseph Reagle (W3C staff responsible of legalese
questions) about the need for a Test Material License. Kirill has an
open AI to clarify his company position on the need to have a
restriction in the scope of usage. Otherwise, Joseph proposed to share
the discussion with the other WG chairs, so that more opinions on the
matter allow to get a better idea of what's really needed. The WG agrees
on this course of action.

6. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/thread.html#44

5) Adjourn
Next week telecon will about SpecGL, and per Mark's request, especially
on specGL conformance to itself following the review he made [7]. The
next one might be on TestGL.

7. http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/11/qaframe-spec-20021108-specgl
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 03:59:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC