W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2004

* DRAFT - Morning 1 2nd Part - F2F QA WG - TP - Mandelieu 2004

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:27:06 +0100
Message-Id: <5EA31990-6B73-11D8-9520-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
* DRAFT - Morning 1/2 - F2F QA WG - TP - Mandelieu 2004

Actions Items: AI-20040301-02: KD to write the QA CR assessment report. 
(content will be decided at the end of the F2F.


Scribe: Karl Dubost
Participants:
	LH Lofton Henderson
	MS Marc Skall
	PC Patrick Curran
	DHM Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
	LR Lynne Rosenthal
	KD Karl Dubost
	OT Olivier Théreaux

Observers:
	RA Richard Aughton, Amadeus
	CN Colas Nahaboo, Ilog
	MB Mary Brady, NIST

Round around the table to present participants
Presentation of the [QA WG] by [DHM]

* [QAF] CR Assessment Report

The [QA WG] discussed about the CR report on the implementation status 
of the [QAF]. The discussion has drifted on why the QAF has not been  
accepted and so how could we improve things.


[KD] It will be difficult to write, because we had a few negative 
answers from WGs with regards to a real implementations and people 
interested have not pushed further. My question as a WG have we put 
enough effort to push it or does it seem too hard to do, too boring to 
do? I want to discuss with [Steve Bratt] about the expectations in the 
[QAF]
[MB] I have read the QAF and it's very hard to get in for someone who 
needs right away to create something, the first step is too high.
[OT] Should we split up the document?
[MB] Making it more accessible in a sense? Examples to start directly.
[KD] What do I put in the CR assessment report? There are two types of 
answers.
[PC] I would consider to put a fair report with the lack of answers and 
that we are reconsidering to reorganize everything.
[LH] We have started with GL and we had no comments at all from WGs 
until CR.
[KD] (Doing the history of the QA WG) My main regrets is to have not 
set a requirement documents at the start, but I see the comments we 
have now as a chance of this missing requirement documentation, we 
haven't made at the start.
[OT] I agree that it would have helped but I guess it would have still 
be problematic.
[LR] We have lived in our cocoon. We need to update: repackaging and 
expanding some of the things. I think going to CR was a good move, 
because it will help us to move forward even if it means steps 
backward. Some people inside WG were very surprised how so close they 
were from a success of the [QAF] when reviewing their specs.
[MB] Within WG, the testing effort is really starting to pass CR.
[KD] Do you think it can be hidden in the early effort of a spec?
[MB] It's very hard to have the attention of vendors before CR for that 
purpose.
[MS] I think that our goals have to be higher and that our documents 
must be applicable to other communities outside W3C.
[DHM] It's interesting. If we think that, we should try to get feedback 
from external communities, but it might be as difficult as we had 
inside W3C.
[PC] I have read for one year, and I still have difficulties to 
understand it. We have to think how to make it useful.
[CN] It's easier to think we are monkeys, and we are proceedings by 
imitations and copying what others have done.
[KD] I think we should hide QA, not remove it, but help people. so 
becoming in a sense HelpTools, HelpDesk, producing templates. QA is not 
here to fix your bad code, Help is here to help you to produce good 
code.
[DHM] We should put an effort on producing how examples/techniques 
could help people and not constraining.
[LH] Right now, one thing we can do is turn the stack upside down.
[DHM] We should separate the abstract model from the stuff which is 
directly useful for the editors.
[KD] I would like to have the opinion of the WG to fill the CR 
assesment. I propose we put this item at the end of the meeting.

People agreed

[MS] Are we sure we have good stuff?
[KD] Maybe it's a matter of producing the tools which help people to 
produce quality, more than teaching quality itself.
[KD][LR] As a group we need the principles to create the good tools
[MS][LH][PC] Discussing about making it more direct. (Basically another 
way of saying the things we said before)

AI-20040301-02: KD to write the QA CR assessment report. (content will 
be decided at the end of the F2F.


[QAF] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs
[Steve Bratt]

[QA Wiki] http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA
[QA WG] http://www.w3.org/QA
[WASP] http://webstandards.org/
[Pompeurs ML] http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/pompeurs/
[Pompeurs Wiki] http://www.publishtogether.com/pompeurs/
[public-evangelist] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-evangelist/
[WWW 2004] http://www2004.org/
[Testing Practices] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/qa-test/

[DHM] http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
[KD] http://www.w3.org/People/karl
[OT] http://www.w3.org/People/olivier/
[CN] http://koala.ilog.fr/colas/
[LH] http://esw.w3.org/topic/LoftonHenderson
[LR] http://esw.w3.org/topic/LynneRosenthal
[MB]



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Monday, 1 March 2004 06:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT