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

Re: Draft Minutes, 2002-03-14 Telephone Conference

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:13:07 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314163547.040c9380@rockynet.com>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Good minutes, thanks Dimitris.  Just a couple of minor corrections:

"Interesting from specification perspective (intricate performance 
requirements),
test material provides interesting technical problems."  -- 'performance' 
should be 'conformance'.

Note Jack Morrison should be Attendee, not Regrets (my bad -- his 'regrets' 
message did tell me that he would probably join late, not that he wouldn't 
join at all).

List of people who will miss 3/21:  should jc be jm?

Typos:  rady (ready), crediation (accreditation), wihtout (without).

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 10:47 PM 3/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
>Attached, please find the minutes.
>
>Best,
>
>/Dimitris
>
>---
>
>
>QA Working Group Teleconference
>Thursday, 14-March-2002
>--
>Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis (dd)
>
>Attendees:
>(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
>(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
>(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
>(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
>(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
>(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
>(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
>(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
>(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
>(CK) Colleen Kelly (Microsoft)
>
>Regrets:
>(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG 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:
>Not published yet (20020314)
>
>Minutes:
>
>
>Agenda:
>1.) Roll call
>2.) Any WG web site/logistical topics
>3.) UAAG test suite discussion
>LH wrote the agenda just after the mail exchange between Gundersen, 
>Jacobs, Dardallier and Henderson. Asked for
>topic for discussion with QA WG. Resolution: some of the QA WG join a UAAG 
>call. They will not be on today's
>telcon. Who might be interested? Interesting from specification 
>perspective (intricate performance requirements),
>test material provides interesting technical problems.
>
>Potentially interested: Dimitris Dimitriadis, Lofton Henderson, Kirill 
>Gavrylyuk, Karl Dubost
>
>4.) Framework document schedule
>LH: We aimed at publishing in TR around April 1, progress is a bit slower, 
>Editors propose another WG cycle before
>publication in the first week of April, target 2-3 weeks after that for TR 
>publication.
>
>dd: proposes that commentability is enhanced
>LH: some discussion around that. open to suggestion on how to get more 
>lively discussion
>
>         - new parts and their progression
>LR: Spec guidelines
>the draft is a preliminary start for what the document will be. describes 
>parts in detail (scribe's phone gave up
>here). by identifying information in the spec, you enhance traceability of 
>tests as well as automatically
>generating tests. Lynne sketched checkpoints and guidelines, dimitris 
>concentrated on spec granularity and what that makes
>possible.
>
>LH: guildeines 4-9 will break down into more guidelines
>LR: anatomy breaks down into more guidelines as well
>LH: intra-ed drafs will have fleshed out parts of the new document versions
>
>dd: (2b Process&Operations-exTech)
>first part gives an account of existing test suites, second part monitors 
>checkpoints and guidelines (in 2a) and
>investigates how much has been implemented, and gives one example per 
>implementation if it exists
>
>         - next publication date
>
>5.) Continued issue#55 processing (per [1])
>LH: checkpoints in operational guidelines one by one. the issues list 
>won't be rady until this afternoon. issue 55
>says look at the checkpoints snd confirm their priorities. We should be 
>looking at the 3/11 doc, not the 2/25 one.
>We have gotten up to chkpoint 4.2
>
>How do we want to handle the dialogue about chkpoint 1.1 raised by Mark?
>
>MS: summary
>first issue: wording on test suites. you always want to make sure that you 
>ask for something which is reviewed, we
>want to move up the aspect of reviewing the TS in the table.
>second point: test assertions, only mentioned in level 6 presently. ms: we 
>cannot mention test suites without test
>assertions. we mention test suites in level 2 (preliminary) in the more 
>complete point (4) we should mention test
>assertions. concerned that test assertions are done. the issue is not if 
>the assertions are part of the
>specification. point: if a test suite, not necessarily complete, exists, 
>so should test assertions.
>
>associated issue: we talk about having prio 1 as a commitment to level 3 
>in the table, nothing else is said about
>the rest of the table, in that case the table should not be published.
>
>dd: stresses that improved specification authoring will expose test 
>assertions and failing to meet them.
>
>KG: proposal: agree about test assertions at level 2 (wg should produce at 
>least a subset of assertions). levels 5
>and 6 should be swapped. do not agree with the comment about review. 
>reviews is essentially not done by WG, but
>after tests are run.
>
>dd: tests need to be reviewed by the WG, if it's a deliverable.
>
>KG: we don't say that the WG has tests as a deliverable, only to have a TS 
>as a deliverable.
>
>dd: WG needs to at least put a "stamp of approval" by the WG
>
>MS: agrees. asking for a deliverable implies reviewing quality (also in 
>the TS case)
>
>LR: Wg makes sure that there is a QA review on the TS, whether they do it 
>or delegate it to others. when done,
>they accept the deliverable (the TS)
>
>KD: if someone accepts to do the review externally, how can we assess the 
>quality of the work?
>
>[jack joined the call]
>
>KG: what should the wording be? we need some wording that ensures that the 
>TS is reviewed (externally/internally)
>and that the TS review process is of good quality
>
>LH: had a reply to the test assertions thread. we need to be careful about 
>overly general statements. svg suite
>is diagnostic suite, not checking (regarded as good, but does not contain 
>list of things to test). we need to be
>careful about what we mean with test assertions.
>
>MS: go from spec to test assertion, then to test suite, don't go directly 
>to TS
>
>LR: test issues will be adressed in the fourth document
>
>MS: you should be able to trace tests against assertions
>
>LH: there is a wide spctrum of improvements to be made, but it is not easy 
>to see how this can be done
>
>MS: do we want to think about the issue about having a table which 
>requires level 3, wihtout saying anything about
>the rest of the table?
>
>KG: agrees
>
>LH: we should have some convergence and take it off-line for the time 
>being (mail)
>
>LH: chkpoint 4.2 is where we were last time.
>4.2 listed as a prio 1 chkpoint. previoulsy 4.1 was prio one and was 
>changed to prio 2
>4.2 - produce a qa document is listed as prio 1. it stays prio 1 (no 
>objections)
>
>4.3 - in the qa process doc, define the means of qa related communication. 
>is this a necessary part of satsfying
>4.2?
>
>KG: no
>
>LH: issue 56, you have to have objective test critera, what is the 
>objective criterion for 4.2? in the 2b doc, you
>could give examples, if they exist, but what if they do not? what 
>interpretation of the 2a chkpoint do you give?
>
>LH: are 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 lower prios?
>
>4.3:
>
>MS: propose that having a qa moderator is necessary
>
>KG: should qa moderator be prio 1 and qa task force be prio 2?
>
>MS: yes
>
>agreed
>
>LH: 4.4
>
>KG: reason for prio 2 is that the framework (how to develop docs and use 
>the tests) may not be needed.
>perhaps wrong, should it be prio 1?
>
>ALL: yes
>
>KG: 4.5 specifying policy for branding materials. prio 3. keeps 3 but 
>strike out "if applicable"
>
>RESOLUTION: keep prio 3 and remove "if applicable"
>
>gdline 5, ensure that ts is documented and reusable.
>
>LR: remove the "accredited third party" phrasing
>
>MS: you don't necessarily need third party certification, if someone wants 
>third party crediation, what's the prob?
>
>LR: get rid of accredited 3rd party
>
>KG: agree, keep reusable
>
>LR: then I see it as a prio 1
>
>KG: ok, let's raise it to prio 1
>
>LH: extra telcon: three absents, lh, dd, jc if we go for next thursday. 
>when should we have the extra telcon?
>
>agreed to have the extra telcon normal time next thursday
>
>6.) Adjourn
>
>adjourned 3 minutes past scheduled time
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 18:11:16 GMT

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