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

DRAFT minutes 2002-07-10 telcon

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:56:39 -0400
Message-Id: <a05111b4bb952095ec442@[24.201.26.36]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 27-June-2002
--
Scribe: KD

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Regrets:
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

Absent:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

Summary of New Action Items:
	ACTION: AT, A-2002-07-10-1, Send a mail to the list 
explaining the issue wrt "USe case" of Checkpoint 1.2
	ACTION: AT, A-2002-07-10-2, Send a clarification for this Guideline 3
	ACTION: PF, A-2002-07-10-3, Write the proposal for CK 3.4 
with examples.


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0026.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: *** to be done ***

Minutes:

LH: is asking for attendance of Tokyo Meeting.
... Reminder for the minutes which have not been published yet.
... Review in the week when the minutes have been taken.
... Post final minutes and send message to the QA IG mailing list
... Terje has asked for better writing of minutes
... asking if it would help to have a link at the top of the Minutes templates
... to the logistic guide for minute takers.

3.) improved IG-WG communication & participation [7]
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0021.html

OT explains what's the issue with the list management and discussions.
... we have the opposite effect right now
... the WG list is active and not the IG list
... we should bring back the discussion to the IG list (www-qa@w3.org)

LH first of all we completely agree that a lack of activity
... on IG list is not good.
... We should keep the IG list more informed.
... the QA WG needs also a Core of regular people working on things 
to close the issues.
... It will be difficult to separate the two things?
... A little bit reluctant to move everything to the IG list.

KD: When we have issue to the IG, we can post it
... on IG list for discussion
... when it's related to documents
... and post the resolution on WG list

LH  yes it's a possibility

OT I agree that switching it will be difficult from one list to another.
... everytime we have an issue we can raise it
... on the IG list
... and so we'll have the feedback

LH It's agood idea.
... we could add the A week in QA a summary of what'sgoing
s a short clarifying note and wonders if it'd be better to stay clear of it *
... on the WG list too.

OT that's sounds good, but I hope that 2weeks will not become too long.

LH should we try that?

OT yes

LH the weekinqa has become amonthinqa for this month because
... there was not so much traffic for it
... what we will do for this release.

OT proposes a solution.

LH when it's the next release

JM next monday

LH is there an how-to document?

OT yes

Karl agrees

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/02/aweekinqa
requirement with howto

LH Dom, do you have tips and the last good one.

DHM just read and made a good summary ;)
other ideas from lofton:

LH we can send to the IG list a message informing people
- agenda in advance (so ppl can participate)


OT I'm not sure we could send the agenda to make people participating 
to the teleconf
... but to help people to send interesting messages
... about the agenda
... we can send the agenda to have people respond, not especially 
join the telcon

PF You can ask for comments and you can ask to join.

LH people who want join we'll have to contact the chairs.
... before the teleconf.

OT it could have bad side effects on schedule, maybe as well it could 
improve it.
... so-so

Decision : expand scope of weekinQA + flag technical issues to www-qa 
(+reliable minutes)

LH we will try to increase the disclosure of the WG on IG

-----
4.) doc technologies "task team" for QA Framework

LH we look at the questions raised before from Montreal
... The family of documents has been increased to 7 documents.
... should we switch to XML spec
... or continuing to develop a customized class of XHTML
... it's a topic for all editors
... so people involve in editing and document technologies with Dom, 
Oliivier and Karl

... DHM, Karl will  you be interested?

... Karl will partipate, and DHM maybe.
... will pick that again on the mail.

-----
5.) Dimitris proposed WG doc-tech questionnaire [1]
	[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0015.html


LH postponed - because dd is not here
LH send comments by the end of the week
----

6.) Review assignments [2]
	[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/06/reviews [Group Only]

LH We will do a case study wrt to the QA Framework
... each person will do 3 reviews in the next 6 months
... sandra does it seem reasonnable (you did XML)

SM it takes 2 hours in the morning

LH it seems reasonnable
... you look at the guidelines and checkpoints and tries to extract 
the techniques

Karl is asking for clarification

LH After the teleconf, I will write a clear proposal and detailed.
... we can discuss it on the list.
... and we can start to put names in a Matrix for assignments
-----

7.) Spec Guidelines [3], [4]
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0708.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jul/0019.html
	- revisit GL.3, GL.4. GL.7

LH presents the issue
... Section 1.5 was revised according the discussion on 28 june teleconf
... we add clarifications and motivating paragraphs
... checkpoint 1.2 look at it.
"Once included in the specification Use Cases become Normative 
(@@how? what MUST requirement do they convey?), unless otherwise 
specified."
... what does that mean?

AT Do we have a strong definition of what is a use case

Karl who's talking

LH I don't think so

AT it will be better to have a definition first.

LH That's why it will be good to have a clarification to avoid 
possible objections.

AT People may have different ideas depending on the backgroung for the use case

SM ask what does mean normative in its context?

AT it happens when you have for example a scenario, and this kind of 
scenario is becoming a normative thing.
... scenario could be a use case.

LH We are creating an issue on it.

ACTION: AT, A-2002-07-10-1, Send a mail to the list explaining the 
issue wrt "USe case" of Checkpoint 1.2

LH Checkpoint 2.2 is it a good way to formulate it.
... do we must make it a lower priority
... or will it be able to define a class or product
... we will leave it as a separate claim from the CK 2.1
... move to the CK 2.3

Checkpoint 2.3. Indicate minimal support requirements.
... identify what conforms and how
... What does that mean to define a class of product
...  with no minimal requirements
... It's not reasonnable to not have minimal conformance requirements

AT agrees

PF what does mean support
... we have to change support for a conformance claim.

LH no minimal requirements means....

PF you have to support everything.
... there are no minimum

LH ok we have to clarify that
... GL.3, GL.4. GL.7 deals with profiles, modules, etc.
... how the minimal requirements interact with those
... any ideas.
... postponed. for the next telconf.
... CK 2.4
... DM is not here so moving forward
... Guideline 3
... dimension of variability are complicating things so we will not 
include them
... because it will be difficult to quantify
... for example, if you use profiles and modules at the same time
... you will add complexity
... and dimensions of variability
... so it will lead to difficulties for interoperability
... it's not necessary hell

KD dimension of variability could cause problems.
... We should keep Specs simple
... Do not go to complicated specs

LH so you want to keep the warning

KD: Yes

AT You can end up with Matrix defining modules and profiles and 
qualifying doimension of variability

LH AT, can you polish it a bit and send it to the list?

ACTION: AT, A-2002-07-10-2, Send a clarification for this Guideline 3

LH CK 3.3 If profiles are chosen, indicate whether or not their use 
is mandatory  for conformance. [Priority 1]
... Mark came up with a clarification
... Conformance is defined in terms of Profiles.
... not in terms of the spec itself
... it's hard to discuss about oconformance without class of 
products: content, etc.
... 3.4 there's no wording for it.

PF for example in SMIL 2.0, there are different profiles
... in each profiles, it's explained what must be supported.
... I will write a paragraph and some examples

ACTION: PF, A-2002-07-10-3, Write the proposal for CK 3.4 with examples.
-----

Resigning QA WG notice of Olivier

OT I will continue to deal with AI
... I do it focus more on the IG work

LH Congatulates OT
... thank you very much for the work done

*** People are crying on the call ***
*** Someone was very close to commit suicide ***

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

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 11:56:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT