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

Re: Draft Minutes of Wednesday, 8 January F2F Afternoon

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:22:33 +0100
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: skall@nist.gov
Message-Id: <4CBABBFE-29D3-11D7-9F71-000393556882@ontologicon.com>

one comment inlined
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 02:00  AM, skall@nist.gov wrote:

>
> 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 HazaŽl-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.
>
[dd] I cannot remember either voting for or abstaining from voting on 
templates. I agree on the rest, though. Templates will not be included 
in the wording I'm about to send for the second TTF draft.

> 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 Thursday, 16 January 2003 23:21:45 GMT

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