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

Minutes 2003/11/17 QAWG Telcon DRAFT - REPOST

From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:49:50 +0000
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031118154950.M18861@hyperion>

DRAFT MINUTES - reposted with more legible formatting

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 (generally).

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 September.

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 comments.

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 

LR: Do you see the Spec editor is audience? or are they stake holders?

DM: Spec editor would seriously read specGL. This  material could help 
editor defend actions against WG critics of extra workload.

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 

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

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 

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 

LR: "It helps ensure..." what?

DM: For "provides:" 'collective wisdom of many past groups like yours'

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 particular

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 process

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 10:51:08 UTC

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