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

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

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:17:40 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020322072917.00ac9260@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Karl
Thanks for taking the minutes.  Corrections are below


>Absent:
>(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
>(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
>
>Summary of New Action Items:
>No new action items
>
>Previous Telcon Minutes:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Mar/0067.html
>
>Agenda:
>1.) Roll call
>2.) Continued issue#55 processing (per [1])
>3.) Adjourn
>
>
>
>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

Request WG to review and suggest text to clarify what is meant by 
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.

Examples will be in the Examples & Techniques document

>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
you have to explain why you reject a submission. Clear and open process.
Example will be moved to the Example&Techniques document.



>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.

LR: We all agree - P1


>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.
>Discussion
>LR: It's strongly recommended to not publish in TR space.

Request WG review the explanation and provide any suggestions.


>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) ??

MS P1 for two reasons - if not having a disclaimer may open W3C up to 
litigation, better to put in.  Also, not an onerous task to do

>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.

LR definition of TMaterials is defined in the Introduction of this document.


>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:

are

>         - 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
MS: what is meant by assessment of their quality - this isn't clear
LR: So, Priority stays at 2 and Come up with a better word than assessment

>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]
>Fine
>
>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.
>KG:
>  remove the CP or P3.
>LR: Removing it. Consensus
>KG: what we should do with that
>LR: capture it a paragraph.

LR if possible, capture it in a paragraph and put as part of the Guideline 
7 explanation


>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]
>Done
>
>
>Lynne Rosenthal Questios:
>+ Any further comments
>         nope
>+ 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
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 16:17:42 GMT

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