Minutes QA WG Telconf - 2003-04-28

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 28-April-2003
--
Scribe: Karl Dubost

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique HazaC+l-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Regrets:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

Absent:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)


Summary of New Action Items:
KD: AI-20030428-01 review the spec xkms2 in two weeks from now.
LR, MS: AI-20030428-02 draft a new proposal for this issue - Deadline 
next Telconf

Agenda: 
http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20030428072159.009d13d0@terminal.rockynet.com
Previous Telcon Minutes: http://www.w3.org/mid/3EAC14F3.6090200@sun.com

Minutes:

Agenda
1. roll call
2. Last Call reviews
3. specGL issues processing
4. specGL extras

1. roll call

Karl is doing the roll call

2. Last Call reviews

XML Key management has issued Last Call. [1]

We need someone who might accept to do the review. "Who wants to 
volunteer?" As usual, silence in the room :/ Dom proposes that 
someone in the chairs or the Team does the review (which means (Dom, 
Karl, Lofton, Lynne or Olivier). Lofton proposed that we declare we 
don't have the resources for it. Karl is asking when the last call is 
finishing and if the document is long: "May 23, 2003" and quite long. 
After checking for the clarity of the language, Karl has volunteered 
to review it.

KD: AI-20030428-01 review the spec xkms2 in two weeks from now.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2/

3. specGL issues processing [2]

Groupings [3]

Lofton proposed to Dom to chair the discussion on the issues 
resolutions of Spec Guidelines.

Dom summarizes the discussion that have arisen on the mailing-list 
about the notions of profiles, modules and levels. He's not clear if 
we should merge or not the notions. He's proposing to be conservative 
because it seems that WG people make a strong distinction between the 
different aspects. Dom wants to poll people if there are any opposite 
opinions.

Andrew explained that he just sent an email [4] to the IG list 
explaining his position: merging the guidelines AND the checkpoints. 
Sandra has replied to this mail [5] proposing to merge the guidelines 
and keep separate the Checkpoint.
Andrew explained again that he would like to merge guidelines and checkpoints.

Dom pointed out that if we go this way, we have to change many things 
and certainly write a mockup to illustrate what form it could take. 
He's asking if someone wants to draft what will be the new guideline. 
... As usual... silence... (we could play classical music). Some 
discussion continue on the notions of modules/profiles/levels and how 
to reorganize the spec for it.

Dom runs a poll:
LH: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK separated
KD: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK separated
PC: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK combined
DH: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK separated
PF: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK combined
SM: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK combined (ET with the rationale included)
MS: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK combined
AT: 3 concepts, 1 GL, CK combined

Karl accepts to revise his position if the majority wants it. The 
problem is we don't have anybody who volunteer to draft the whole 
thing. Lofton pointed out that we know what we have and we are not 
sure where we are going. The decision after additionnal discussion is 
to finally to merge the Guidelines and keep the checkpoint separated.

[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0208.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0031
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0032


#95 (GL3/DoV)

A new issue on subsetting the specification, but I missed it completely.
	[People are welcome to fill the hole]

==================
mark: 	I don't see the problem.
dom: 	because if done afterward, it can be perceived as an
	extension mechanism.
mark: 	still don't understand.
lofton: it's somewhere between modules and profiles.
dom: 	I think lofton and mark agreed
lofton: lynne trying to find the thread about this.
dom: 	the question is we should put that in the ET doc or
	the spec doc
lofton: lynne have posted a mail with 2/3 points for a
	resolution basis. sorry I can't find right now.
andrew: if someone in a community disagree with our definitions,
	will the people miss the CK.
dom: 	In reality I 'm not sure it will be a problem.
andrew: How do we order the CK in the spec? do we provide
	a generic ck to help them to add a way to verify
	something which is not covered by the CK;
mark: 	it's a kind of extensions.
lofton: reading the lynne's email
	Lynne's approach is good. I propose the message to
	be the closure of the resolution.
mark: 	I think it's too detailed.
lofton: the issue should be addressed in extension. you
	and lynne could clarify together.
mark: 	Yes I will work with her that.
lofton: AI Lynne/Mark to clarify the additionnal verbiage.

Issue 98

dom: 	I'm not sure it's really relevant for the
	conformance if we clarify the definition
	of the level in the guideline.
lofton: let's make me sure we capture this rationale.
dom: 	We will reply the CK requested by the commenters
	is the core of the definition. so it doesn't have
	the place in the conformance section.

lynne, mark: AI-20030428-02 draft a new proposal for this issue


lofton: adjourned.


-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 21:32:22 UTC