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

Draft minutes Telcon 2003003100

From: by way of Karl Dubost <dimitris@telia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:18:00 -0600
Message-Id: <a05200f11ba962767d558@[198.214.234.185]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org



All,

Below please find minutes for your comments.

Thanks,

/Dimitris

---

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 10-March-2003
--
Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(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)
(DM) Dave Marston, IBM (IG)

Regrets:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C)

Absent:
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20030310-1 AI Peter Fawcett: new review text reflecting the 
proposed revised structure of TestGL on the 20th for the telcon 
scheduled 24th

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0033.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0011.html
F2F minutes (draft):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0029.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0030.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0032.html

Minutes:

1.) roll call 11am (ET), membership

2.) TestGL structure and issues [1]
        - Re-structure proposal, structure comments [2], [3]
        - other issues leftovers from f2f agenda [4] (e.g., LH comments)

(LH) main goal for today ought to be to see if we can get a rough 
consensus on reorganization, the plan was to have a telco on TestGL 
in two weeks. If we can get an overall consensus the editors will 
have a chance to prepare a text until then.

(LH) Peter/Patrick, will one of you give a brief overview of your 
proposed reorganisation?

(PC) We tried to restructure the GL chronologically in terms of the 
process of putting together a suite of tests. We also tried to make 
the checkpoints fewer.

2. decide on how large/deep you want your test suite to be

3. put in place some test management system

4. do the actual development

5. guidelines related to test execution

6. results of test execution should be saved for later processing in 
the next step

7. results reporting (you have to have a mechanism for this, not 
necessarily an automated one), you should be able to drill down the 
successes and failures and be able to filter these.

(DM) when the test GL gets more refined, let's review how they step 
through the checkpoints if they do/do not have a test task force

(DM) we should decide what to do with GL7, move it forward/backward 
or have it be covered by the other guidelines

(LH) sounds as the majority is in favor of leaving GL7 where it is now.

(MS) two points: 1. had to do with documentary requirements. When we 
discussed last week, do we actually want to request a packaging a 
test strategy design document? To me GL1 sounded like test strategy, 
2/3 like test design. It's not clear how documentary requirements are 
captured. Another point has to do with packaging. It's one of the 
first things you want to do. I would move it up to GL1.

(PC) I think we've tried to adress this.

(LH) We need to allow a few working days for people to look at it 
before the telcon.

(PF) Should be ok, I'll get in touch with TestGL editors.

(MS) Will be out of town from tomorrow intul the 20th.

(LH) New text by COB 20th?

(PF) OK

(LH) Maybe GL1 can be called test strategy, 2 test design.

(MS) We're asking for documentary requirements, the two possibilities 
seem to me to be strategy and design. We're talking about much higher 
level stuff than the actual tests.

(PC) The GL document speaks in general terms, an ExTech document goes 
into greater detail.

(LH) Writing verifiable conformance requirements becomes a bit 
tricky. Editors will try to solve this issue.

(LH) Kirill, with the proposed reorganisation, do you think there are 
issues with the migration into OpsGL?

(KG) We should make sure items are covered in OpsGL, there may be 
uncovered areas. I'm not greatly in favour of moving guidelines 
between documents.

(LH) Kirill's comments against the reorganisation.

(KG) Maybe OpsGL is the place for interop requiremetns. What we mean 
is that test material be made available for everybody.

(PF) One goal for me was to adress some of Lynne's concerns, not to 
overburden the implementor. We don't want to exclude people because 
of bad design.

(PC) ExTech may be a good place to put it.

(LH) It sounds as if you're OK with this.

(LH) Ease of use. I thought we said that we should come up with 
objective criteria and we should require this

(PC) I don't think we can put in an easily verifiable such criteria.

(MS) Ease of use is relative, in any case. Ease of use could be 
written down as a goal that someone should strive for, no more.

(LH) So it's not the case that we discussed this as a criterion, then.

(KG) The last one of my points already got taken care of

(LH) It sounds as we have sufficient consensus for the editors to 
produce the next discussion draft. Anything else we need to deal with 
as a WG on this telcon?

3.) [QAWGPD leftovers from f2f [4]
        - 5 enumerated issues]

4.) Adjourn (15 minutes past the hour)

5.) Overflow (12-12:30):  available.
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 07:47:00 GMT

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