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

[DRAFT] 21-March-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:31:01 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101400b8bfe1188d76@[]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I missed bits because of my phone problems.

QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 21-March-2002
Scribe: Karl Dubost (KD)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)

(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)

(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
No new action items

Previous Telcon Minutes:

1.) Roll call
2.) Continued issue#55 processing (per [1])
3.) Adjourn


KD: About a week in QA
	It seems very difficult to motivate people to participate to 
this review.

	- Karl Dubost
	- Peter Fawcett
	- Lynne Rosenthal
	- Olivier Théreaux

* Being a moderator/writer: When Karl Dubost be a reviewer, Olivier Théreaux

Issue 55.
	Must be kept for a wider presence on the telconference.

Checkpoint discussion on QA Framework Guidelines

Checkpoint 5.2.
In the QA Process document, define a contribution process. [Priority 2]
KG: Is it clear by contribution process? Make a precision on ideas or 
Clarification on the contribution process

Checkpoint 5.3.
In the QA Process document, define the licenses applicable to 
submitted test materials. [Priority 2]
KG: two kind of license  vendro submitted test materials, publisher 
test materials. Checkpoint is not clear on the type of license.
MS: priority 1
LR: we don't need an example here.
OT: How we define license for submission process if there is no 
submission process.
KG: Someone can contribute a full TS without contribution process.
LR: exemple of XML TS, here is the TS and give it completely. And 
from this point we will come up with a contribution process, but 
maybe at the first part we have a possibility to give something.
Kyrill: Explanations should point to the example documents and have 
explanations for specific cases.

Checkpoint 5.4.
In QA Process document, define review procedures for submitted test 
materials. [Priority 2]
KG: Priority is fine. We can have priority 3. review procedure is not formal.
LR: It should be documented. How are you going to review etc.
MS/LR: Priority 2 because you have to explain why you

Checkpoint 6.1.
Ensure a secure and reliable repository location for future test 
materials. [Priority 2]
KG: P1 being sure to have a reliable repository.
LR: We don't care if it's private, so we should know if it's open or private.
Should we have another checkpint or should we detail this one. Do we 
need the word future.

--> Remove the word future, and add something on public, Open or private

Checkpoint 6.2.
In the QA Process document, define the licenses applicable to 
published test materials. [Priority 2]
KG: propose P1
LR: W3C need license?
OT: yes
LR: We are all agree.

Checkpoint 6.3.
In the QA Process document, describe how the test materials will be 
published and point to the corresponding web page. [Priority 2]
Kyrill: remove the checkpoint.
LR: It's strongly recommended to not publish in TR space.

Checkpoint 6.4. Provide a disclaimer regarding the use of the test 
materials for compliance verification. [Priority 2]
MS: P1 for two reasons. We have apropoer disclaimer, 2) ??
KG: agree
LR: does it apply to validator?
MS: we made the distinction for validators.  For now, compliance 
validation is syntax validation is not only correct.
LR: You should add a disclaimer TS or validator.
KG: you can't be sure of the validator and TS
MS: agree
LR: definition of TMaterials is defined in my document.
We provide a disclaimer for TS or Test Materials.

Checkpoint 6.5. In the QA Process document, describe how vendors can 
publish test results for their products, if applicable. [Priority 3]
KG: vendors have license restrictions.
LR: therea re various ways of publishing the results:
	- WG, taking out the names
	- vendors publishing themselves
	- NIST publish but after the agreement of vendors.
KG: You provide the mechanisms for vendors to publish
MS: ??,
LR: Provide a mean for reporting for vendors test results.
KD: encouraging inside collectively
Kyrill: Remove vendors and add something on interests.
P3 -> P2

Guideline 7.
Plan the transfer of test materials to W3C if needed.

Checkpoint 7.1. If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, 
perform an assessment of their quality. [Priority 2]
Missed most part of the arguments
LR: Come up with better on assesmant of the quality P2

Checkpoint 7.2. If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, 
identify sufficient staff resources to meet the requirements. 
[Priority 2]
Ms: without ressources you can do it. It must be priority one
MS: Kyrill, it's related to previous cp
	---> P1

Checkpoint 7.3. If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, 
resolve IPR questions and reach agreement with the external party 
that produced test materials. [Priority 1]

Checkpoint 7.4. If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, 
update the QA commitments in the Working Group charter if necessary. 
[Priority 2]
LR: Process difficult
KD: explain the process + pb with the end of life to the WG
LR/KG: Discussion on rechartering.
LR: it should be already there.
  remove the CP or P3.
LR: Removing it. Consensus
KG: what we should do with that
LR: capture it a paragraph.

Guideline 8.
Plan for test materials maintenance.

Checkpoint 8.1.
Maintain contribution and review procedures throughout test 
materials' and standard's entire life cycles. [Priority 3]
OT: I would like to understand. So maybe rewording.
KG: what does that mean? So it would be better to reformulate
OT: yes

Checkpoint 8.2.
In the Working Group's QA process document, specify a procedure for 
updates of the test materials to track new errata/specification 
versions. [Priority 2]
No comment

Checkpoint 8.3.
In the Working Group's QA process document, identify the 
communication channel and procedure for appeals of tests validity. 
[Priority 2]

Lynne Rosenthal Questios:
+ Any further comments
+ Anybody want on Chapter 3. - Discuss it later.

Move the bi-weekly schedule. Skip next week. and start week after.
Move to April 4 for next telconf

Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 16:31:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:26 UTC