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

Final Meeting Minutes for QA Working Group Teleconference Wednesday, 04-September-2002

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:15:46 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020917101304.02a2fbe0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 04-September-2002
--
Scribe: Mark Skall

Attendees:

(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)

Regrets:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent:
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2002-0904-1 DH will re-draft the two questions to ensure that they’re 
not redundant and they fit together
AI-2002-0904-2 KD and Olivier will refine the day one agenda topics list 
that includes 4c and 4d (1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup plus 1/2 day 
other, miscellaneous)
AI-2002-0904-3 If not signed up by Monday, 9/9/02, the Chairs (KD) will 
make assignments for the techniques assessment for a GL document..
AI-2002-0904-4 Chairs (KD) should propose dates for columns 1 and 2 (QA Ops 
GL and QA Spec GL) of the Assignment Matrix for the QA Framework 
Reviews.  Half of the dates should be before November and half after.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Sep/0009.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0157.html

Minutes:
1. Roll call, membership
See above


2. Logistical topics

LH  Olivier agreed to be Co-Chair of IG and this was approved by W3M.
Olivier  is working on QA Tools.  A new  validator will be released 
soon.  Olivier plans to discuss the  future of WG and IG at the F2F meeting 
in Tokyo.  Both the WG and the IG expire in Aug, 2003. Both Lofton and 
Olivier agreed that the “Week in QA” needs more work.

LH  We will evaluate “Week in QA” in Tokyo. Ask IG for feedback.

3. Questionnaire last details [0]

LH - Supposed to be sent to team and Chairs list on Monday.  We may be 
making a mistake with the intro.  The intro contains a lot of technical 
detail that is not helpful in answering questions.  Putting this much 
detail into the intro might distract people from answering the 
questionnaire.  Alternative intro swept technical detail under rug.  LH 
thinks intro should be as brief as possible.  Should we cut out hyperlink 
references?
MS  Leave hyperlinks in.
DH  Put hyperlinks in after questionnaire
LH  Agreed.
LH  We will change the questionnaire reply to just Dimitris and Dom.  It 
will not go into any public archives.
LH  Question 2 redundant with 1.
JM  Can leave separate.
MS  Question 2 asks if group considered it.   can add that to Question 1.
DH will re-draft the two questions to ensure that they’re not redundant and 
they fit together.
LH will send to Chairs list today and DH will send to Team list.

4. Frm schedules, editor changes

Most of this will be discussed during lead editors meeting  hour later.

SpecGL team changes - LR and DH will become lead editor for Spec 
Guidelines.  They will be responsible for driving issues, resolutions and 
meeting guidelines.  Circulate proposed publication schedule after editor’s 
meeting today.
TestGL WG-only  The plan is to have a draft by next Tuesday.

5. Tokyo agenda (details at [1])

A role call was taken to see who will be at Tokyo.

LH              Yes
MS              Yes
DH              Yes.
Olivier                 Yes
KG              Yes.
LR              Yes.
JM               No
AT              ?
dd              ?
KD              Yes
SM               No
PF              ?

Agenda rough outline
            4a. 1-1/2 days SpecGL & Extech
            4b. 1/2 day TestGL
            4c. 1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup
            4d. 1/2 day other, miscellaneous

The above is LH’s rough outline of the division of time in Tokyo. The plan 
is for the publication of all parts in October.  The first pub of Ex tech 
and the  3rd pub of Spec GL  thus will need 1-1/2 days to discuss.

dd and LH will present and demo the DOM and SVG test suites 
respectively.  Everyone is encouraged to present other test suites.  The 
purpose of the presentations is to relate the issues we’re discussing to 
concrete examples.

Olivier  We need one full day for non-framework agenda items.  Demos of 
tools, the discussion that give birth to work in QA, and coordination with 
other groups are examples of non-framework agenda items.

The order for the Tokyo agenda will be 4c, 4d, 4a, 4b.  Thus:

Day 1
1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup
1/2 day other, miscellaneous

Days 2 and 3
1-1/2 days SpecGL & Extech
1/2 day TestGL

Olivier  This is good because we won’t run out of time at end for 
non-framework items.

KD and Olivier will refine the day one agenda topics list that includes 4c 
and 4d.

LH asked for volunteers to organize the collection of demos of test 
suites.  No volunteers.
LH will send e-mail to WG soliciting volunteers to show test suite demos on 
day 1 agenda.

Olivier We will have wireless only connection in Tokyo.


6. Reviews matrix [2]

LH  WE have 5 volunteers for the techniques assessment for a GL 
document.  The NIST team has volunteered for Spec GL.  KD will be added to 
that team.  The Chairs will assign remaining people.  If not signed up by 
Monday, the Chairs (Karl) will make assignments.

LH  We need dates for assignments and we need to coordinate with our 
publication schedule.  We want  reviews before next publication and  after.
LR  We don’t want to do the techniques assessment until documents are 
relatively stable
LH  They should be done post-Tokyo.
KG  What is the process for techniques documents assessment?
LH  One person should serve as the editor.  The team should then decide how 
to work together.  For each checkpoint, come up with list of techniques to 
be in ex and tech document.
MS  Do we need more than one example?
LH  For certain checkpoints
MS  Examples are sufficient but not necessary.  There may always be other 
ways to meet the checkpoint.  Are examples and techniques normative?  I 
don’t think so.
LH  Action items in 4th column in the assignment matrix (techniques 
assessment) need to be done in the 2-week window after Tokyo to be useful 
for the publication cycle.  For Action Items in the first 2 columns   need 
to be done before Nov. 1,  after.  Chairs should propose dates for columns 
1 and 2 (half before Nov and  after).  Also, fill in rest of column 4.

7.) AI list, status review [3]

The list of current Action Items was reviewed in order to determine which 
action items were completed.  The following details the status of certain 
action items:

Mark
07-03-3 Done
06-27-2 Done
05-30-4 Done

Lofton
08-21-2 Pending
07-31-3 Redundant, should be eliminated

Dom
08-21-3 Pending

Karl
07-31-2 Redundant with Dom’s
08-07-4  Done
03-01-9  Need to do work on this and make progress and have a draft html 
document to look at by Tokyo.

Kirill
04-04-5 Done
03-08-3 Done
02-14-6 Done
06-20-1 Done
Rest of Kirill’s not done.

8. Issues List Processing

Not done.  Not enough time

9. Adjourn

The telcon was adjourned at 1140.








****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
**************************************************************** 
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 10:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT