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

Fwd: Minutes for March 6 (afternoon)

From: Mark Skall <skall@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:23:24 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030310102127.00aad298@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
FYI.


>Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:25:37 -0500
>To: ot@w3.org
>From: Mark skall <skall@nist.gov>
>Subject: Minutes for March 6 (afternoon)
>Cc: skall@nist.gov
>
>QA F2F Boston Meeting
>Thursday, 06-March-2003
>--
>Scribe: Mark Skall
>
>Attendees:
>
>(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
>(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
>(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun)
>(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
>(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
>(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
>(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
>(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
>(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C)
>(DD) Daniel Dardellier (W3C)
>(DM) David Marston (IBM/Lotus)
>
>Regrets:
>
>(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
>(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
>
>Absent:
>
>(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
>
>Guests:
>
>(JR) Joseph Reagle (W3C)
>(SL) Susan Lesch (W3C)
>
>Summary of New Action Items:
>
>AI-20030306-1 LH will send contact info on Kirill to JR so he can contact 
>him (3/7/03).
>
>AI-20030306-2 PF and PC will improve wording of Section 3.1 of the Process 
>document and come up with specifics and measurable items (3/14/03).
>
>AI-20030306-3 MS will define what an issue is (3/28/03).
>
>
>Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/f2f
>
>Minutes:
>
>(LR) Wrote up discussions on test materials on “A week in QA” for February.
>
>Test Materials Licensing Issues
>
>Introductions were made.
>
>(JR) There may be confusion with respect to fair use. JR will develop a 
>document with all the issues  will then send to Chairs for 
>feedback.  Next, the document will be sent to W3CM and MIT 
>legal.  Anything in JR’s present document that’s not representative of the 
>issues?
>
>WG agrees that the present document accurately reflects concerns.
>
>(PC) Is the document a statement of requirements? PC will develop 
>statement of requirements for Sun. Can JR speak directly to Sun’s lawyers?
>
>(DH) We will waive the rule that the document must be delivered one week 
>in advance.
>
>QA WG Process Document
>
>Susan Lesch introduced herself.
>
>(LH) Five active issues that are WG process issues.
>
>(DH) What are goals of document?  How do we know if we’re finished?
>
>(LH) We should try to finish this today. We will go through the document 
>and decide what we want to do with it and give action to the editor.
>
>(LH) First issue is invited experts.  How formal should this process 
>be?  WG Resolution: There should be no formal voting to allow others to 
>participate.
>
>(DH) They should be invited at the discretion of the chair.
>
>(LH) Agreed.
>
>(DH) W3 process already has something in place for invited experts.
>
>(LR) Some invited experts don’t want to be official members so that they 
>don’t have to conform to all the rules.
>
>(MS) Why is this relevant if the W3C process document already addresses this?
>
>(LH) We need “topic experts” who are not invited experts.
>
>(PF) W3C process document does not allow non-invited experts or 
>non-members to participate.
>
>(OT) Topic experts can be invited on a case by case basis.
>
>(DD) Not a burden to be a member or an invited expert.
>
>(LH) There may be other reasons for someone to participate on the WG not 
>as an invited expert.
>
>(KD) If the public can’t have access to documents why should a topic expert?
>
>(MS) We have a process.  Let’s not obviate it.  It’s not fair to everyone 
>else.
>
>(OT) It should apply to the W3C team too.
>
>(SM) Process document relates more to test materials.  First part of 
>document is talking about charter  do we want this?
>
>(PF) Section 1 is a clarification of specific issues that are 
>under-specified, like defining a quorum, minutes, etc.
>
>(LH) Everything in the first part is not redundant.
>
>(PF) We could have defined this in our charter, but didn’t.
>
>(LR) Section 1 doesn’t have to be part of a process document  can put it 
>off logistics/group page.
>
>(DH) Agree with Lynne about separating the first part.
>
>(LH) Let’s talk about packaging later.  Don’t write a rule for the odd case.
>
>(MS) Process document should document the process.  Let’s not have 
>everything in different places.
>
>Proposal is to remove Section 1 (invited experts, topic experts, etc.)
>
>(PF) Don’t know if we need Section 3.1.
>
>(MS) Don’t need 3.1 because there are no measurable terms.
>
>(LH) 3.1 is useful.
>
>(PC) 3.1 is useful but we need measurable words. We need to list the 
>actions and a standard way the actions are processed.
>
>(DH) We need a deadline when sending notices.
>
>(LH) Section 4  When an action item is completed, put AI title number and 
>e-mail to action item editor (Olivier) and cc to WG.
>
>(MS) Minutes template or logistics part should be linked to from the 
>process document.
>
>(MS) Issues should only be things that affect our work and the processes 
>of our documents.
>
>(OT) All issues should be documented and easy to find.
>
>Section 5.2  LR questions need for this section.
>
>(LH) Someone needs to decide who makes the decision as to what is an issue.
>
>(OT) If anyone thinks it’s an issue, it should be.
>
>(MS) Disagree.
>
>(DH) Issue owner should be designated by WG for class of questions.  Issue 
>owner drafts issue and includes in issue log.
>
>(LR) Document editor should makes the decision on whether it’s an issue 
>and be issue owner.
>
>(LH) Chair will route issues without obvious owner to whoever is working 
>in the area to make decisions on what is an issue.
>
>(MS) Issues should include alternatives.
>
>(DH) Allow one week for alternatives.
>
>(MS) Alternatives are a test to see if an issue is well developed.
>
>(LR) Issue owner shouldn’t be one to develop alternatives.
>
>(DH) Do not process issues for which we have no proposals.
>
>(MS) We need alternatives to be able to discuss issues correctly.
>
>Section 5.3
>
>Issues discussion should take place on IG list.
>
>(MS) Discussion of issues on IG list is counter-productive.
>
>(DH) Depends on what you want  debate v. moving forward.
>
>(MS) We have a diverse set of opinions on WG.
>
>(LH) IG list generates new comments.
>
>(MS) Yes, however we need to stop adding new comments at some point and 
>resolve issues in order to make progress.
>
>(LR) Comments on IG creates outreach.
>
>(DH) When dealing with specific issues, IG list is good.   Starts on IG 
>list, finishes on WG list. It’s a subjective decision as to when this 
>happens.  If interesting discussion may result, send to IG list.
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 10:31:17 GMT

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