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

Re: Suggestion for different agenda Tokyo F2F (AI-2002-0918-7 completed)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:46:59 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021001200836.020b5230@rockynet.com>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Dimitris (et al),

Thanks for this.  Some comments are embedded.

At 12:53 AM 10/2/2002 +0200, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>[...]
>below please find my suggestion for different F2F agenda ( my 
>AI-2002-0918-7 completed).
>
>4.) Tokyo agenda (refine?)
>         - Day1-AM: IG-WG topics
>                 * any additional topics?
>         - Day1-PM: proposed restructuring...
>                 * TA markup topic (&questionnaire)
>                 * Test sub-group topic
>                 * Test materials demos/discussion
>         - Day2-AM: TestGL
>                 * specific topics/focus/issues?
>                 * overflow demos from Day1?
>         - Day2-PM: SpecGL issues
>         - Day3-AM/PM: SpecGL issues
>         - Day3-PM:  wrapup, AI summary, etc.
>                 * next meeting details (KG)?
>
>My initial reaction is that Day 1 PM is going to be too full:

Yes, I was sure of that also, unless each of the following was limited to 
1/4 hour...

>I'd personally rather see Day 1 PM look like:
>                 TA Markup topic
>                 Test Group Topic
>
>and have the trainling Test materials demos/discussion spill over to one 
>of Day2PM/Day3AM.

Or maybe start the demos on Day1 PM and finish at other time.


>Rationale: All three topics on the current Day1PM slot are quite important

No argument, they are important.

>and we have allocated resources to bring them about (except perhaps for 
>the demos which have been produced elsewhere).

"Resources" is the key word -- there don't seem to be enough to go 
around.  More below...

>Speaking of the remaining two; being one of the originators I would very 
>much like some more time on both the Questionnaire discussion (as the WG 
>discussion is crucial for the future) as well as the Test Group forming, 
>which I think should be discussed at lentgh, as have similar things in the 
>past.

To help us decide about agenda time allocation, here is an 
idea/request.  For each of the topics, could you please make a brief 
outline of:

-- Goals at Tokyo for that topic -- i.e., meeting output.
-- Any identified issues/subtopics
-- or otherwise break down and structure those agenda slots.

I.e., if we were to spend 3 hours (full half day) on the two topics, what 
does a detailed agenda look like, and what would be our ultimate goals?


>I do believe this is doable, if we manage to solve some SpecGL issues in 
>telcons. However, there are temporal aspects (publication deadlines and 
>the like) so we would need to be quite focused.

IMO, possibly doable, but I'm not sure if we can borrow time from 
SpecGL.  Reasons:  we will have 2-1/2 weeks after Tokyo until publication 
(figuring that everyone doesn't get back to work till Monday, 10/14).  I 
anticipate a lot of editing subsequent to Tokyo decisions.  I don't think 
there is any time for significant issues resolution.

I think that any slippage on SpecGL schedule should be considered 
non-negotiable, as it is tied pretty tightly now to the March Technical 
Plenary (i.e., completing Last Call at or before TP).

(In fact, if we give a good enough push on SpecGL at Tokyo, then we might 
be able to use time at the following week's teleconference to finish up 
Tokyo agenda bits other than SpecGL which didn't get closed, and which 
don't need face-to-face time.)

So we should (IMO) have a look at some creative juggling , after we 
consider goals/details of the TA markup and Test team topics.

-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT