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

Minutes for 20030630 telecon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:26:00 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030630162351.03a89670@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 30-june-2003
--
Scribe: Lofton Henderson

Attendees:
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(DM) David Marston (IBM/Lotus -- guest [QAIG])

Regrets:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Absent:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

*** Non-meeting -- no quorum ***
*** These notes are the final "minutes" ***

Summary of New Action Items:
none.

Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0090.html

Previous Telcon Minutes:  [DRAFT]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0077.html

Minutes:

There not being a quorum -- no meeting.

David, Sandra, and Lofton discussed David's draft SpecGL review [1] of Last
Call F&O for Xquery and Xpath for a while.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0090.html

Unclear what exactly to do with it, as there was not a QAWG quorum to
endorse it as official QAWG position.  Therefore we decided:

1.) David to send it to F&O editors, indicating its uncertain status.
Also noting in introduction that it was reviewed against LCWD of SpecGL.
SpecGL LC issues processing is done (almost), resulting in numerous
changes and improvements to the document, but substantially the same
normative content (requirements).  Also asking if they want it sent to
public comments list for LC.  (--DONE--).

2.) Lofton to ask QA chairs/staff about:  QAWG versus DM personal
contribution; given lack of Process requirements, and given SpecGL's own
incomplete state, should publicly present review to Xquery WG as LC comments
to be responded to?  Or, should we present them informally to the WG as
helpful comments?  (Or, should we ask the WG their preference?).
(--DONE--).

### end ###
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 18:25:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT