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

Draft Minutes of Wednesday, 8 January F2F Afternoon

From: <skall@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:00:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1042074039.3e1cc9b770761@imp.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group F2F
Wednesday, 8-January-2003, afternoon
--
Scribe: Mark Skall 

Attendees:
(Dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) 
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) 
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) 
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) 
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) 
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) 
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) 
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST
 

Regrets: 
(JR) John Robert Gardner (Sun) 
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) 
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)


Guests:
(WC) Wendy Chisholm (W3C)
(MM) Matt May (W3C)

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

Summary of New Action Items: 

OT – To update Action Item table.
DD – Describe what the “ assuring uniformity” in third bullet of deliverable of 
TTF means.
DD – Produce new TTF draft in 3 weeks.
KD – Investigate place in Paris to host June QAWG meeting (report Mar 6-7 in 
Boston).

Minutes: 

LH – Will not finish specGL today.  Will finish in next 2 telcons.
Thus, cannot do resolution to go to last call.  That will take place a week 
from Monday.  One open item left for OpsGL.  Will do at Monday’s telcon (fill 
in commitment table of GL1.)  Rest of Monday wii be devoted to finishing 
SpecGL.  Everyone should look at draft Action Item list and make sure we 
understand and agree with it.

OT is adjusting AI table and will update.  

Testing Task Force (TTF)

Dd – Charter is modeled on QA WG charter.  Charter is for a task force to 
ensure that guidelines in TestGL get followed by WGs 
When they decide to produce test materials.

LH – Is this to narrow for our mission?
LR - She objects to enforcement role.
LH – Mission should be to ensure that every rec has a good test suite.
Dd – Should be enforcement.
MS – We don’t have power to enforce.
MS – “Ensure” is proactive.  We can’t ensure (guarantee).
KD – We can tell WGs when they do not successfully have 2 interoperable 
implementations.
DH – People won’t spend a lot of time worrying about the charter.

Editor will re-draft the mission statement.

LH – “Enforce the use of practices” will get changed to “Ensure the use of 
practices required by the QAWG Guideline documents.”
KG – Should be “help to ensure.”
MM – Should say “advocate” and “help implement”.
Dd – Deliverables include test technologies and techniques
LR – Should the tools reside in QAWG?  Should TTF develop templates to 
facilitate tool development?  Do we envision TTF building things?
Dd – We should not do maintenance.  Don’t know about templates.
LR – Charter should allow us to optionally develop tools to help WGs build test 
materials or to help WGs conform to our documents.
Consensus – It’s desirable for TTF to build tools, resources allowing.
MM – Even a “how to” will help.
Dd – We shouldn’t be “out source” for building tests.
Consensus – New bullet – develop tools, templates and tool kits of general 
usefulness to help WGs develop test materials.
Consensus – Tools to help WGs conform to our documents is the charter of QAWG, 
not TTF.
LH – Should completion of TestGL be in charter for TTF?
Consensus – No.
LH – Third bullet of deliverable should be “Assuring uniformity” rather than 
just “assuring”.
Duration of TTF – It depends on whether TTF is chartered as separate from QAWG.
LH – We should say that we anticipate that this mission will take at least 2 
years (mission will be long-term) and TTF is just a mechanism for starting it 
up.  
Dd – Should be a WG.
LH – Doesn’t matter what it is but if we make work interesting, people will 
join.
MS – People will only join if they get management support and they need to show 
relevance, not interest.
Dd – We will not attract new people if it’s in the same WG.
MS – This will not allow us to attract new members; we will need to do it.
LH – That supports not having a WH because we will not have the resources to 
start it.
LH – Success criteria should be worded to reflect the mission statement.
Task Group Proposal was already discussed in Tokyo.  We don’t need to discuss 
it again now.  DD has already done F2F solicitation – DOM WG is happy with idea 
but no one seems to devote resources.
LH – If we have high-level W3C support, they should help get us support.  W3C 
should meet in person with companies.
MS, DH – That’s not the way W3C works or should work.
MS – We should plan that the only resources are already in QAWG; if we get 
more, great, but deliverables should not assume that.
TTF Next Steps:  next draft of charter, circulated to IG list; call for 
participation, investigation by KD.

Http Demo

An http test suite was demonstrated.

Future Meetings

Meeting in Athens 

Dd - No connectivity, no meals, hotels may not be cheap.
KD – Had same situation in Montreal; did not provide meals; try to get support 
from universities, etc.
LH – We need an alternative for the Athens meeting.  I propose France as an 
alternative

TestGL – KG will have reduced time to contribute; cannot be lead editor.  PF 
may have time to be lead editor(need 4 hrs/week commitment).

KG – Need to address 3 or 4 issues and start ET.

Grateful thanks to KG and Microsoft for very generous support.

Meeting adjourned at 1700.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 20:01:05 GMT

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