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

2002-05-23 QA Working Group Teleconferences Minutes - DRAFT

From: peter fawcett <pfawcett@real.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:06:21 -0700
Message-Id: <v04011705b913342629f6@[172.23.103.67]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Opps, sent it to the wrong alias. It's been too long of a day...


QA Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 23-May-2002
--
Scribe: Peter Fawcett (pfawcett@real.com)

Attendees:
(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)

Regrets:
	Lynne Rosenthall (till august)
	Olivier Thereaux
	Dominique Hazael-Massieux

Absent:
	Andrew Thackrah


Summary of New Action Items:
A-2002-05-23-1: Action Item for Karl/Lofton to set up dial in/telcon
details for f2f in Montreal.

A-2002-05-23-2: Action Item for Karl to add few last terms. (already done)...

Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Apr/0018.html (Is this
correct? It's the most recent one on the minutes page but I thought we'd
met at least one other time in May)

Minutes:

1) Roll Call.

2) Montreal f2f Update.
Update on Montreal f2f from Karl, everything is basically ready except the
phones.
Register as soon as possible. There is a form on line with links from the
QAWG pages.
If you want connectivity at the meeting you will need to give them their
ethernet MAC addresses. No planed support for wireless.
Investigating Dial in/dial out.
Lofton has posted first draft minutes for f2f.

Lofton proposes that we spend most of the meeting on logistics for f2f and
f2f beyond, as well as prioritizing how we are going forward.
went over draft agenda for f2f.
Dimitris sent email about another topic for meeting.
Add to agenda topics 3-9 to agenda.
Suggestion to break up meeting so that general issues are on one day or
grouped and issues at the end so those interested in general but not issues
can attend just those parts.
Need to talk about tests in checklists and guidelines.

Kirill will have additional materials for test licenses at f2f as well.

A few people may not be able to make f2f but those folks would like to be
able to dial in.
Action Item for Karl/Lofton to set up dial in/telcon details for f2f.

Scheduling for f2f in Tokyo, 10/7-10/8. Sept is too busy, earlier has
typhoon issues.

3) Status report on QA Glossary.
Karl/Mark: glossary is more or less ready but it needs more review. Some
new terms not yet added, but once they are added, it will be time for
review and Karl will send a note to the group for review.

Action Item for Karl to add few last terms. (already done)...

Lofton: some discussion about definition of an assertion / test assert.

Mark: Use definitions in glossary and if some one has a new definition for
an existing word, from email or other source should, they should write up
and action item to discuss it.

Lofton: yes but new words should be less formal in procedure

Dimitris: Need to be careful that the definitions of the glossary and the
use of the words in the guidelines stay 'in sync'.
May mean that we need to version our glossaries and to link to specific
versions or reference specific versions of the glossary.

Mark: Definitions should be short and clear, unless there is a real reason
to expand them.
Lofton: yes but currently they are too terse.
Some discussion of how deep an explanation a glossary should have.
Reference to the WAI Glossary, less terse and even some examples.
This needs more discussion.

Add to Montreal agenda for discussion as well as update now.

WAI group never discussed the issue. They just felt being more descriptive
was better in general.

4) Long term goals.
Should have basic framework documents for tech plenary. That means last
call for frame work parts in Jan. of next year.
Currently we have parts of 4 done in various states, 3 have yet be started.
We are supposed to publish every three months, we published recently, next
documents should be published in Aug. for 3 months but it would make sense
to push it out. Sept would be 4 months. Oct. might be an issue but it's
believed that it wouldn't be an issue to push out the publication.
That means that all 7 parts need to be published in Oct. around 2f2.

KG: Proposes doing a partial publication at end of summer. He feels that
parts of the test guidelines will be ready.
Talk about it in Montreal, partial publish in with what ever is done at
that time.

5) Framework documents:
Ops Guide is fairly stable. Needs more editorial and descriptions.
Ops Ext needs more examples.
Spec parts are next priority and test parts is final.
A good start has been made on Spec Guide but on start yet on SpecExtech or
Test Documents.

If we decide that this is the correct priority then (skipping to #7)

7) There are 3 editors (Lynn is on vacation till Aug) and none of them has
much free time to work on new documents.
Daniel: Proposal to drop extech docs to not have TR/NOTE status so that
there may be more than one editor.
Dimitris: experience is that merging documents from multiple editors can be
a bunch of work too.
Daniel: Put doc in qa space so multiple people can edit document. Much less
formal and structured, perhaps give it a once over and clean up for
'publishing'.
Ops Extech was done by sending out checkpoint guidelines and sending copy
to Lynn and Daniel to fill out for dom and xml along with Lofton doing svg.
Then the three were basically merged.
Do we go beyond case studies (where it is now) to talk about pass/fail
criteria and how case studies 'stack up' against that pass fail, or how
they show examples of passing.

Topic for Montreal: How/where to organize and progress the Extech Documents.

A less formal document has benefits, but it must have structure to ensure
that it has a degree of completeness.
Proposal to get WG Chairs to get a wg member to help fill out examples and
tech documents from their wg perspective.
Need to decide on collection of case studies or if we are going further.
Need to resolve editor issues one/many, How it's going to be edited.

Another proposal for Montreal (#8) is how to get more support/help. One way
might be to get wg's to apply our stuff to their specs and send reports
back for examples and tech.

8) Other QAWG Activity.
W3C Project Review.
Daniel, a wg activity rep gives a review of their work to the rest of the
technical staff. Thursday afternoon telcon with slides in IRC.
usually short presentation, lots of discussion.
Another possible outreach is at the chair meeting.

6) Brief summery:
In process of publishing, it has come up that we need to enhance our doc
format. use xhtml with classes for checklists and guidelines and other
document pieces. Then we use stylesheets to layout them out.
It seems that it seems wisest to keep all information in one document and
then use transforms or some other method to display different documents.
Preview for another topic at Montreal. Something to think about.

One last note for f2f. There was a request for feedback from w3c on how
willing member companies would be to follow what we come up with. Could we
get a report from the w3c on any feedback on that.

Next telcon 5/30.

Adjourned.
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 20:11:43 GMT

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