W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Draft Minutes of 04-August-2003 Teleconference

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:57:58 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030804175434.02c0b480@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 04-August-2003
--
Scribe: Mark Skall

Attendees:

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) P
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) P

Regrets:

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

Absent:

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

Summary of New Action Items:

AI-20030804-1 PC will reply to Wendy’s questions concerning WCAG 2.0 by 
2003-08-11.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0006.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jul/0065.html

Minutes:

Scribe: Mark Skall

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

See above

2.) Any routine business
         - WCAG 2.0 reply [1]

Wendy had questions for TestGL  Patrick will reply to her questions by 8/11.
TestGL will be discussed 2 weeks from today at the weekly telcon.

         - XHTML Print Last Call Review (7-sep) [0]

Need SpecGL review for XHTML.  LH asked for volunteers.  No volunteers.  We 
will try to find someone.

         - Boulder f2f update [2]

Everything arranged for the meeting.  Need id info for security 3 weeks in 
advance.  Everyone wants the NIST tour.

The price at the Boulderado hotel for a block of rooms is $119.00.  Mark 
will check what to see what NIST recommends as far as hotels.  There is a 
hotel within walking distance from NIST.


3.) OpsGL DoC (default: go for it)
         - the DoC [3a]
         - OpsGL Editor's draft [3b]

The plan is for LH to send a letter to people who commented, pointing to 
the disposition of comments.  There will be a 2 week period where they can 
accept or argue with the disposition.  The default if no response is 
received in 2 weeks is that they agree with our disposition.  People who 
commented will have until 12 noon EDT 2 weeks from today to respond.

The plan is to go straight to CR text without publishing a WD  just an 
editor’s draft.

LH  If people don’t like difference between CR and Last Call (too many 
changes) it can be sent back to the WG for further work.

There is a problem with checkpoint 4.5. We will move it to be first the 
first Guideline of Checkpoint 5 and the confusion disappears.

Another possible change is to move checkpoint 5.2 (have good user 
documentation) to become checkpoint 6.1. It currently sits in the guideline 
about development.  No one has an opinion. We will leave it where it is and 
go to CR.


         - letter to commentors today?

Yes.

         - preview our intentions to Team (DHM)?

DH  no problem.


4.) Activity & Charters renewal
         - activity statement renewal [4a]
                 - charter IG [4c]

LH  Any comments or issues or questions?

MS  Activity statement emphasizes tool development.  What is the plan?
LH  No plan yet.  Need to discuss at future telcons or meetings. We may 
link to a document that has a list of candidate projects.  Should we have a 
list of specific tools in activity statement?
MS  Should be non-exhaustive list of possible tools.
MS  Where would certification activity go if it went forward.
LH  Certification is still an open question.

- charter WG [4b]

LH  Section 2.  Don’t understand what “can work on specification 
improvement, but this is not a required deliverable” means.
LH  fourth bullet in scope “coordinating works with internal W3C horizontal 
groups: WAI, I18N, TAG and Comm Team.” Does this mean we will be held 
accountable for a dependency that we haven’t satisfied?
MS  Should we put in a “such as”, e.g., or “like”?
DH  Not necessary.
LH  Under specific deliverables, we should say something about finishing 
OpsGL and SpecGL.
DH  Deliverable should be completion of these 2 documents.
LH  Framework is not in this list.
Resolved  Add a bullet to embody completion of OpsGL and SpecGL.
MS  Should also talk about completion of TestGL?
SM  Uses framework/harness interchangeably with framework/process.
MS  Framework has many different meanings.
LH  Need to work on the wording of the 2 bullets incorporating these 2 
terms (2nd bullet of scope and 6th bullet of deliverables) in light of 
terminology definitions of next version of TestGL.
LH  Last bullet of deliverables  “refinement of QAPD”.  This is an 
ambiguous term.  Is QAWG PD (our rules of procedures) or our QA process 
document?
PF  Talking about the template that we use to define our process for our QA.
LH  Will take to mail list to see which one applies.


5.) Adjourn at 1203.



****************************************************************
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 Monday, 4 August 2003 17:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT