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

	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 
[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 
[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 
[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 
[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/
[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

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC