Draft minutes of QAWG Telcon Monday 28 July 2003

  DRAFT MINUTES

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 28-July-2003
--
Scribe: Andrew Thackrah

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazaėl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Regrets:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Absent:
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jul/0054.html

Previous Telcon Minutes: [Not Yet Available]



Summary of New Action Items:
[Format:  AI-YYYYMMDD-N   Who    What    DEADLINE! ]

AI-20030728-1	LH	Improve OpsGL chronological table view	Monday 
2003-08-04




1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

	see above
	 
	 
2.) Any routine business
        - XHTML Print Last Call Review [0]

			Do volunteers - leave on agenda

        [- overdue Action Items ]

		Deferred


3.) CR publication plan for OpsGL [1a]
	 
	- real CR or virtual CR? [1c]

	LH explains issue : Virtual CR is not what we decided at 
Crete. 	I thought we would have a proper step to CR then freeze for 6 
months.
	 
	PF: Yes, that's what we agreed - take proper step to CR


	- issue:  publish WD? [1a] [1b]
		 
	LH: Augmented schedule. only paid attention to OpsGL due to SpecGL 
vacation etc
	Sept 5 is final deadline - then my tenure as chair expires until 
October.
	I've tried to come up with a credible schedule:
	1st or 4 th Aug - will have a version of OpsGL sufficient to 
illustrate 	disposition of comments [DOC] - plus a document to send to 
commenters. 	We let it sit for 2 weeks for commenters to reply then 
have 1 more week for final 	comment negotiations. This 1 week may be 
too tight
	 
	DH: agreed with this and understanding of process.
		 
	LH: we may have to ask for CR permission call two weeks in advance 
of 5 Sept.
		This assumes we have to let SpecGL lag behind - still lots 
of work to be done.
		 
	DH: agreed with that

	LH: There is some confusion on the schedule - should we publish a 
WD and also a WG-only 	version? I am planning to put the DOC in the 
WG-only version (editors draft). So CR text 	would be available at time 
of CR call request (22 Aug). but transition rules require CR 	version 
available when the request is made.
		 
	DH: Actually it's more dependent on DOC than availability of final 
doc - this should be enough

	LH: So we don't need to publish an OpsGL Working Draft - just use 
a WG-only version 	and then go for CR. Is this bucking process?
		 
	DH: I don't think so

	LH: There is a risk in transition (ref 1b) - too much substantive 
change since previous
	version can block transition. I believe normative substance is 
mostly same for OpsGL - we 	should be able to show this.

		 
4.) Last of the OpsGL loose ends
	 
	- LC-57, chronological view [2]

	LH explains issue. Do we provide chronological view of when topic 
applies or view of 	when WG needs to act on it?
	 
	DH: Should be latter.
	 
	LR: Agree - but why not have both?
	 
	DH: sounds good
		 
	LH: KD offered to turn it into a diagram. perhaps some kind of 
Gantt chart?
		 
**		[ AI LH to improve table by Monday next ]
		 
	DH: It needs acronym markup in table - since it contained acronyms 
with definition
	 
	LH : what do you think of phase description?	 

	DH: fine as is
		 
		 
	- LC-110, esp. Introduction rewrite [3]

	DH: I've not had time to fully review new intro - but looks good 
enough
		 
	LH: Regarding Section 1.4 - relation to other specs - KD & I 
decided last Monday - 	since all docs will have this - we should 
emphasize common material. specifically - 	relationship needs to be 
emphasized more ..dom..is this adequate? - i.e. not 	emphasized in 
intro (to keep it brief) and linking back for intro emphasis
		 
	DH: yes, it's OK
		 
	LH: And style in general - too heavy with emphasis? compare 
section 1.2 vs 1.3 as example 	of lighter vs heavier -which style is 
best? 
	DH: how is §1.3 heavier?
		 
	LH: In §1.3 I throw emphasis into each bullet point
		 
	DH: Perhaps use italics at paragraph level? Vary emphasis between 
section and para
	level
		 
	LH: could you give specific examples of what you mean?
		 
	DH: I will try if possible. It satisfies my comment as it is 
anyway.
		 

	- new CP for "Promote testing" [4]

	LH suggests three options to deal with this:
	 
		opt 1. Take TestGL CP 6.1 and move to OpsGL GL 6
		opt 2. Change OpsGL CP 6.5 to fold it in - this broadens 
CP 6.5
		opt 3. Ignore since it doesn't belong here
		 
	LH : I prefer 2nd option.

	LH: I think it's important to emphasize this, I'm ok with opt 2.
		 
	LH asks for any objections to Option 2 - there are none.
		 			 
	- Use cases... [5]

	LH: I have drafted four - are these sufficient? how about the 
content?
	are they two verbose?

	LR: I'm concerned with #2 - why caveat with 'several months ago'? 
We could 	say 'existing' or previously chartered'. 
	LH: I want to emphasize the its early in their process
	 
	LR: In #4 why go CR?
	 
	LH: This is based on real life.
	 
	DH: #4 perhaps has too much detail. All cases should be based on 
real life maybe?

	AT: There are two distinct styles 1-3 and 4 , do we prefer style A 
(hypothetical)
	or B (real life case study), or both? case #4 is more detailed and 
personal. 	1-3 are more general.

	LR: Possible #5:  any material has to be reviewed by AC members?

5.) Adjourn

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 09:45:37 UTC