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

Draft minutes of January 27, 2003 Teleconference

From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:53:10 +0000
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030129175310.A10328@hyperion>


QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes [DRAFT]
  Monday, January 27, 2003
   Scribe: Andrew Thackrah

  ---
   Attendees:
   (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
  (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
  (DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
  (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
  (DM) David Marston
  (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
  (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
  (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
  (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
  (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C)

  Regrets:
  (JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun)
  (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

  Absent:
  (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)


  Summary of New Action Items:

  AI-2003-0127-1: LH to write up mark up needs for issue tracking of 
comment form. Due Wed 5th Feb
  AI-2003-0127-2: DH & LH to give OT a checklist table comment skeleton 
like those on review page. Due Wed 5 Feb
  AI-2003-0127-3: LH to produce list of specific topics for targetted 
comments . Just a protoype for WG input. Due Wed 5 Feb

   Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0143.html

  Previous Telcon Minutes: [ Not available ]



  1) Roll call 1600 UCT
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  2a) Last Call details
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      - PR entrance criteria for SoTD of GL docs
         [ LH explains that there are two interpretations of the PR 
entrance criteria:       to have two WGs implement all of the spec. 
requirements or to require that       each (priority 1) checkpoint is 
implemented by at least two WGs. The latter       is easier to achieve. 
Points out that this is the approach taken by SVG ]
         LH - For current current GL rules - barrier is too high. The 
latter          interpretation - cf SVG is a lower barrier. Should we use 
this?
          DH - So priority 1 checkpoints are part of entrance criteria -  
maybe targeting          lower barrier is better to help guidelines be 
applied quickly.
          I don't know if all checkpoints are doable but at least Pri. 1 
and probably          Pri. 2. Since Pri3 are nice but not necessary then 
it shouldn't be a problem
        LH - I'm happy to go with Pri. 1 & Pri. 2 for now. Since this is 
only last call          We can deal with Pri. 3 later
        [ LH to draft the OpsGL status section. Check AI for 8 Feb - this 
AI already
     exists so will roll this work into it rather than create new AI here ]
           - Targeted reviewers         LH - At start of letter - global 
questions: Do we want to target legal process
          people or just informally ask them to comment?
         DH - makes sense to send a targetted review. I will send contact 
details for          legal, comm and  process.         LH - Comm were 
interetstind in specGL, Process in OpsGL
          As for the other people on the list - do we want them to comment 
on all docs?          Or are there others in the list who will have 
specific interests?
         LR - [@@ Sorry, didn't record this - too quiet! Lynne: please 
edit this]
         LH - For the last 3 groups we can add after their name 
'especially OpsGL' etc
        LR - Prior to sending are we going to have personal contact
         LH - No, this is standard procedure         LH - We did say that 
we would send individual letters (14 of them).
         DH - we should send once to a list of 14 names + the three Legal, 
Comm & Process
         LH - after I list the 3 docs - there's a paragraph, boilerplate 
statement,           is this ok?
         [ no objections to keeping it]
             LH - Should we link to almost ready docs, to give them a 
preview?
         DH - I guess it can be more confusing than helpful. Already 
published versions
          will give them an idea if they are interested.
         [ last paragraph to be struck]
                 LH - When we ask them to commit - we promise them a 
review form. It's not
          finished yet - maybe show them a work-in-progess taster?
          [no objection to this - LH to add text about this]
      
     LH - should the targeted message be to chairs, team or both?
         DH - to chairs is enough
          [no objections to this]                              2b.) 
Olivier's draft LC comment forms
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     OT - Should we handle issues resulting on usual issues list or on a 
separate
          page?
       LR - I would rather have these issues tracked separately.
       OT - It will need some exra work to support this
       KD - would be nice to have a markup version - do you have an 
example?
       OT - I will send a pointer to qa-wg list. You can check his (?) 
version of the script       LH - Should we use same markup as current 
issues list? I'm not entirely satisfied
          with current system. It's ok but I wouldn't chose it if I were, 
starting again.
       KD - Describe your needs - could be a kick start for Olivier and be 
useful
          throughout W3C   **  AI: LH to write up mark up needs for issue 
tracking of comment form, due Wed 5th Feb
        OT - The form is almost done but we have to chose how to divide 
the doc. so that          people can send a comment. Do we divide in 
sections like the doc? or in          Guidelines and checkpoints?
          I prefer to divide by GL an CP. Pepole want to comment more on 
susbtantive rather
          than editorial points.
       LR - I agree. maybe take checklist table and add a comment
       LH - DH & I could give OT a skeleton like those on review page. OT 
can use this
       OT - sounds good, I would like by same date as markup (05-Feb-2003)
   **  AI: DH & LH to give OT a skeleton like those on review page. due 
Wed 5 Feb
         LH - [@@ which doc??]simple form by TOC or comments on intro 
without sorting by section?      OT - If you're talking about form only 2 
choices: 1)simplified form 2)pulldown
          menus with applicability field
      LH - I favour a separate form. This will lead to some discussion but 
probably not
          issues. We are going to last call with it as a working draft but 
it may become          a note since there are no conformance requirements.
     [no objections to this approach]
      OT - A list of special points connected to targets.       LH - So 
instead of specific topics like section 1.6 we'd say 'clarity, detail' etc
   **  AI: LH to produce list of specific topics for targetted comments . 
Just a protoype for WG input. due Wed 5 Feb
      3) TTF
  ~~~~~~
   [skipped as DD not present]
      4) Tech Plenary per-WG EO plans
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    - Thurs PM volunteers?
      LH - David has voluteered to visit Xquery/Xpath.       DM - They 
will be mainly meeting Thursday/Friday      LH - We may have a breakout 
session Thursday PM so other non-chair team memebers will
          have time to work e.g. on outreach - perhaps visit MMI? Anyone 
want to do this?
        [ poll of those present who are as yet unconfirmed... either no 
one can make or wants to do it]
     AT - not there,     [KG -  no ]     DD - unlikely     MS - I probably 
have a meeting then, SM too
     PF - prefer not to.
       LH - so outreach team is LH, DH, KD & OT. We need to invite ourself 
to these WGs.
          anyone know a good approach on how to contact?
       DH - Don't make it too formal.       LH - We should make it clear 
that when we say observe that we are doing it for our benefit          (to 
learn from them) and not to judge them
       6.) Wednesday plenary QA participation
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         OT - After the chairs meeting there is a tech plenary. We have a 
slot for horizontal          activities. I'm not (yet) involved in 
organisation of this slot. One topic will
          certainly be the glossary. Maybe we will talk about QA a little. 
I doubt we will          have chance to present a talk about QA though
       MS - who will be on panel?
       OT - I don't know. But will let you know when I find out
      5) Karl's contribution about the "EO kit"  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      [ Ran out of time to discuss this ]
      KD - I would like people to send comments on my email
      DM - don't think I got it (the email)
      LH - it's reference [5] on the agenda
      KD - comments will be appreciated
      LH - we have 4 telcons before Boston. Next telcon we must take 
resolutions about          last call. I propose that we try to re-start 
this

     KD - ok, I will send a reminder to the list to raise discussion
      LH - aim to decide this by next Monday
   AOB
  ~~~
       [ None ]
    Adjurned at 1700 UCT
  
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 12:53:22 GMT

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