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

Minutes 2003/11/17 QAWG Telcon [DRAFT]

From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:42:10 +0000
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031118144210.A18689@hyperion>


QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 17-November-2003
Scribe: Andrew Thackrah

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)

Regrets: (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)

Absent: (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Nov/0045.html

Previous Telcon Minutes: 


1.) roll call 11am EST, membership
	See above.
2.) Any routine business
	- 8 Dec. guest-chair/guest topic?  [DHM or KD] - both regrets - LH 
to handle offline
	 - guest-chair assignments & AIs
	LR: Can I swap dates with LH? 	LH: Yes, swapping dates is fine 
	LR: Also does today count for me, and Mark's TestGL chair for him?
	LH: No, the guest chairs are for topics outside the normal agenda.
	LH: AT -  do you want to do it? e.g. about certification etc - it 
would be next September 		but you could do one before 
	AT: yes - add me to the list 		 
3.) SpecGL selling points

	- LR draft proposal

	LR: to reply to LH - who is this for? Should we have a separate 
doc on web? or just 		snippets to grab as needed?	Is this 
the right scope - any gaps? etc

		Consider intended use: could be multi-purpose, but we 
should target it. 		what are the selling points?

	LH: The original idea for this came from Daniel as an IG topic. He 
thought we should discuss 		production of brief selling points 
(maybe 5 or 6). so perhaps we should contact Daniel for 		 

	LR: Karl also had some ideas - when talking to WGs. We still need 
to know 'what should we 		do with this?'
		Does anyone see this as a published document on the web? 
e.g. Patrick  - WAE has 		reasons-for documents,  short, 
just a few pages or just a set of bullet items.

		My feeling -is keep it short & sweet - not 'yet another 
doc.' ... perhaps a cheat sheet

	AT: So could we aim for a different medium to communicate our 
rationale? - such as a 		presentation/slides.

	LH: Maybe have two incarnations - web and presentation. A while 
ago Karl had an idea - 		should we have a QA quickstart guide? a 
bit of prose - but mainly an index to other resources. 		Pointing 
to progressively more detail. E.g. #1 selling points,..., #n gritty 
details 		e.g. framework docs.

	LR: That would be nice but it is a different topic
	LH: If we do it as a web page?
	DM: I envision a document that explains what type of QA [ @@@ 
David - please can you clarify this?]
	LR: Again this is more like Karl's idea, a different thing

	LH: Maybe we could link a web page out of our bibliography. Next 
published version of 		SpecGL would also link to it
	LR: Yes I would think so. The idea is to convince people to use 
SpecGL - so if the link 		is in SpecGL - maybe it would not 
be picked up.
	DM: Could we provide something for Editors to take to their WGs. 
Editors take on role of 		defending good QA practice - this 
material may back them up.

	LR: Do you see the Spec editor is audience? or are they stake 
	DM: Spec editor would seriously read specGL. This  material could 
help editor defend 		actions against WG critics of extra 

	AT: How do we communicate to unconverted, they probably won't seek 
out our web site 		so what channels can we use to ensure this 
material gets through?

	MS: We need a link higher than QA in the W3C site 	DM: E.g. 
in a page on 'how to chair a WG'?
	MS : Useful, but only prospective chairs would see this

	LR: We want it on pages other than QA. These would be talking 
points for presentations.

	LH: Other propagators: QA moderators (when available), maybe an 
'editors' list?.
		(Dimitris listed editors last year for example) or Com via 
Com liason.

	LR: Yes that would be good.

	LH: One overall comment. repeated phrase 'QA' - everyone will buy 
into a claim that 		'QA' is good - so we need it to be more 
specific to SpecGL. So first section  		should be explicit about 
specification quality.

	LR: The first section - it's cute but should we keep it?
	[no objections]

	LR: "FACT: ..." How about this?

	MS: The percentage figure is arbitrary. Is the reference to an in 
depth study?

	LR: It was a study of a large project

	LH: I would drop "FACT...". 
	MS: "CLAIM:..." weakens the text: beef it up e.g. "it is not well 
known that.."

	LR: "It helps ensure..." what?
	DM: For "provides:" 'collective wisdom of many past groups like 
	AT: Should we mention interoperability or conformance here?
	LH: Maybe under "helps ensure"? 	DM: It doesn't help - but 
makes one conscious of weakness!

	LR: "different stakeholders..."
	[this section generally favoured]
	DM: Also End user can benefit - 	PC: Yes, gives more choice 
through interoperability
	AT: End users are not really SpecGL stakeholders though 	 
PC: But they do benefit. maybe stakeholder is too corporate. Perhaps 
just 		use 'who benefits'
	LR: Yes, so now we can add End users to 'who benefits'

	LR: "QA is important...": any comments?
	LH: Refocus all bits & title away from general QA to SpecGL in 

	LH: "When do QA.." section - I think this is redundant
	LR: suits me to lose it.
	DM: Can we mention errata avoidance? - 'do it right first time!'
	LH: It's sort of implicit
	LR: I'll rework to mention this explicitly

	LR: "when to use it" section - comments? 	LH: overall this 
doc. is about how to use it... so maybe not relevant
	MS: It's worth having - SpecGL is used at several points in WG 
	AT: Is that really a selling it though? 	DM: We could say 
that SpecGL focusses action throughout lifecycle...
	MS: Yes, it can be turned around to make it a selling point..

	LR: A quickstart is needed: this section is based on that..

	LR: I will draft another version - please contribute suggestions
		I will work towards talking points rather than prose - 
will maintain this 		level of verbiage for now but will focus 
on content.

LH: REMINDER - next week we meet Wednesday, not Monday

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 09:45:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:31 UTC