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

DRAFT minutes, QA Working Group Teleconference 2003-02-18

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:38 -0800
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA2690206C35C0E@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Tuesday, 18-February-2003
--
Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)

Regrets: 
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Absent: 
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: [...to be filled in after telcon...] 

AI-20030218-1  All: Send to PC examples that illustrate the QA work in the WG. Prior to Monday Feb 24th.
AI-20030218-2  KG: Send to PC a rough estimate of SOAP 1.2 spec + implementation development cost. Prior to Monday Feb 24th.
AI-20030218-3  KD: To resend an invite to people (selected chairs/staff contacts) to review the QA Framework together with QA WG. Wednesday Feb 19th.
AI-20030218-4  All: Follow up on PC's email with suggestions/ideas for Boston outreach. Prior to Monday Feb 24th.


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0080.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: (draft) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0052.html

Minutes: 

LH: PC has to go in 30 min, so we'll go with the Boston outreach topic first
PC: This is a short presentation. Shall we discuss the structure first? Presenting the structure. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0077.html

DD: Would be good to add a slide or a bullet point describing how would QA participation look like.
PC: Do you have an example of how this would look like?
DD: Proposing an example of a slide
PC: Let me try to work on it next week, I like the idea. 
LH: I have a similar thought. Not sure where does it fit in. Possibly a slide or smth empathizing that it is really not that hard. May be present templates of the charter and QA Process document. This would cover many checkpoints.
PC: I'll try to incorporate this in too.
LH: Would be nice to have a lot of examples.
PC: Let's get to the 2nd slide: cost and business justification
LH: Talks about the SVG example of the cost
KG: I can probably give an example for SOAP 1.2 + cost of the implementation
DD: Working on the interoperable standards is an overall saving. You already work on the interoperable standard, and testing allows you to add to this saving even more.
PC: Aren't we missing the argument that testing may save the cost of specs writing
DD: We could present a case study: 3 to 4 bullets list showing on each level practical gain by undertaking QA proposed way. Present immediate gains from following the particular guidelines. 
PC: Anyone would like to volunteer to do a case study by Monday?
LH: how about just put a slide with references   
LH: We should be cautious, since we only published the LC documents. But since we incorporate the experience of this WGs into the guidelines, we should have captured their experience and gains.

PC departs.

LH: Summarizing what was done for the slides.
DM: Suggested to customize the slides for the specific audiences.
KD: I would empathize appointing the QA lead. This position gives the influence, so that should be encouraging. We just need to express it correctly.
KD: I recently attended the MIT site meeting. Don Connoley requested the staff contacts to acknowledge that they are aware of the review for the QA framework LC that is coming. I would suggest that we send the email of the Last Call to the WGs that we particularly want to reach but this time to both chair and staff contacts.
LH: Should we resend the message to invite people to review our documents together. 
KD: I will send the note about the review right after the meeting
DD: Was there any communication about the summary that I sent?
LH: It was included into the month in QA.
LH: About specifics for the Boston outreach presentation. We mentioned case studies, decided to put there references that WGs can contact.
DOM, SOAP, SVG. Candidates: XML Schema, XML WG, OASIS XSLT WG - we should talk about it on the next Monday teleconf.
LH: Let's talk about the slide "Next Steps". If we just say "Come and talk to us", that won't generate much discussions. We should mention examples.
Reiterating comments sent earlier. It could be list of goals from TTF, list of tools that we recommend/plan for...
DD: We should list next steps for them other then asking us questions. Something like identifying the QA skills in the WG, etc.
LH: Something like swapping the Ops GL slide to the last.
KD: List tools that we recommend. Listing tools that are missing and circulating on the WG list would help to identify what we need.
LH: I'm trying to think how to capture these things so that we discuss them next week. May be an email outline would help.
LH: Let's reply to Patrick's email with our suggestions/ideas.
LH: we are out of time now. The first part of the teleconf next week is the license discussion with Joseph Reagle attending.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 20:05:19 GMT

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