[Draft] Minutes from QA WG f2f meeting Monday, Jan 06, afternoon

Minutes of the QA WG 6th Jan afternoon

 

Minutes:  F2F Seattle WG Meeting

06-January 2003, afternoon

 

 

Attendees:

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)

(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)

(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C)

(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

 

Guests:

(WC) Wendy Chisohlm (W3C)

(MM) Mathew May (W3C)

 

Regrets: 

(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C)

(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

 

Absent:

(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)

 

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/01/agenda-detail

 

Action items:

 

KD: Action item to go through the Matrix and present the list of the WGs matching the above criteria , Jan 8th

OT: Plan/make a speech for the Tech Planery meeting. By Tech Planery.

LH: Draft/send an invitation for review to the WG selected. Jan 24th.

KD: Send publication request:  8st Feb

OT: Last Call comments form: 21st Jan

LH: SOTD for the Last Call for OpsGL: 8th Feb

DH: SOTD for the Last Call for SpecGL: 8th Feb

KD: Draft/send announcement: draft 5th February , 10th Feb to send

KD: To complete the ET documents for OpsGL and SpecGL by February 2nd 

MS/LR: Action Item to submit to KD the Techniques for SpecGL by Jan 22nd

 

Scribe:

 

OT: Agreed to move EARL discussion to Wednesday afternoon.

 

OT and LH drawing the timeline for the QA deliverables.

 

Agreed on:

End of January - roadmap for the QA kit

QA kit complete - March 1st.

 

WG participation.

LH: Was there any response from Sun on status of the participation in the QA WG. 

KD: Sun's response was that Sun will participate but no specifics were given.

LH: Any other companies that promised participation but did not participate?

KD: Many companies did not commit resources but committed to review the documents.

 

Tech Plenary:

OT: Action item to make a speech for the Tech Plenary meeting. Will prepare the plan for the talks at Tech Plenary meeting

 

Public outreach:

OT gives a report. 

 

Last Call Plans.

LH: We believe the documents (Intro, SpecGL and OpsGL) are ready for the the LC. We need to determine what to do for Ops ET and Spec ET. The deadlines we had (Dec 20) were slipped. 

LH: Discussing reviewers. By the time the meeting is finished, we need to have a resolution on which documents and when will go to the Last Call. We need to determine the list of the WGs we'd like to ask specifically for the feedback.

 

Gathering suggestions:

crirteria for groups selection:

- "young" groups

- groups that we had productive relationships with

- groups that has gone or are going through building a test suite

 

KD: action item to go through the Matrix and present the list of the WGs matching the above criteria - 8th Jan

 

LH: Public Last Call list is www-qa@w3.org

 

LH: AI send an invitation for review to the WG selected.

Draft/Send the review request: LH, Jan 24th

Send publication request: KD, 8st Feb

Last Call comments form: OT, 21st Jan

SOTD for the Last Call: 8th Feb, LH for OpsGL, Dom for SpecGL

need PR entrance  criteria - by Wed Jan 8th - all, done

Publication: 10th February

Announcement:  5th February - KD to draft. 10th Feb to send

How long the review should be: Last Call Feb 10th - March 10th

 

PR entrance criteria: 

Ops GL: To have 2 Working Groups Level A compliant with the Guidelines.

Spec GL: To have 2 specs Level A compliant with the Guidelines.

 

 

Ops GL

Discussing the Examples and techniques document.

KD: The Techniques part of the document will be informative, "This is a good way to do it".

LH: Once we fill the Techniques sections, are we satisfied that we have a proper support for the GL document? 

 

Agreed yes.

Will also align the markup to have similar looking.

KG: How do we intent to publish ET documents

LH: They stay in WG space, have dated redirect.

KD: To complete the ET documents for OpsGL and SpecGL by February 2nd 

MS/LR: Action Item to submit to KD the Techniques for SpecGL

 

LH: Question about the completeness of the OpsGL. 

 

LH: Some of the checkpoints do not have rationale anymore.

MS: I find rationale to be useful. What it would take to add it?

LH: A day -1.5 days of work. Not all the checkpoints in SpecGL have a rationale either. 

KD: Rationale is like a business case.

LH: If I change the document to add Rationale for all the checkpoints by Jan 21st - would the document be completed? No additional WG review necessary?

All: Yes.

MS: I trust LH.

 

LH: Could we pull all of the Ch3 from the OpsGL?

Resolution: Leave a brief header section referring to the QA WG Process document. Most of the info from Ch3 is already in the QA WG process document.

 

Adjourned for the day, 5:10pm.