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

Draft minutes of QA WG Telcon 15-March-2004

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:22:14 -0500
Message-Id: <4D5711C7-76A5-11D8-85AF-0003934BEBF0@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 15-March-2004
--
Scribe: [Karl Dubost]

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(DM) Dave Marston (IBM) by QA IG virtue


Regrets:
(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems) (Permanent Regrets for now)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent:
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)


Summary of New Action Items:
No new action items

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0041
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0032

Abstract:

Patrick Curran has presented the New Spec GL Lite outline and has 
looked forward the opinion of the QA WG on
	- which parts belong to the Handbook (old-OpsGL)
	- Which parts belong to Test GL Lite
	- which parts of Test GL Lite should be mandatory.

The WG has agreed to have a practical part which is mandatory, and to 
put all the process things in a non normative guide in the document.

Chairs are asking about the next F2F in June and its location. 
Proposals have to be sent before the end of the week. Please give your 
schedule constraints.


Minutes:

* F2F Minutes organization

DHM: LH, is someone assigned to format the minutes of the F2F in a 
unique document?
KD: olivier
LH: I assume that olivier would do it as always.

* Test GL Lite - New Proposal

LH: We have one item on the agenda, which will be mainly done by 
Patrick about the reformatting of Test and Ops GL.

PC: I have been concerned since the begining by the overlap between the 
two documents TestGL and OpsGL. I have tried to define the class of 
products for Test GL (Test Lite now). At the start CoP was only test 
cases and not process, but we broaden it a bit. Adding things little by 
little seems to be a bit awkward. In TestGL, I have decided to add 
things which were completely dedicated to the process of building a 
test suite. First of all, I have identified 4 GLs

	1st versioning, errata in your QA deliverables.
	2nd: Your test materials are usable for their intended purpose
	3rd: GL 6.3 of Ops GL is related to testGL
	4th: 8.1 is related to TestGL directly.  and 8.2 procedure 
identification.

This implies that Test GL contains at the same time informations for 
the content of tests and Process (non normative) in this document. 
Anything which is an operational method should go in Test GL. If we 
accept this, I would like that TestGL, there's a formal process, but in 
a non normative way. (resources, scope of your tests, management of the 
development process, etc.

KD: Test GL Lite - Does that mean there are a handbook and a more 
technical part?

PC: Yes, it might be a reasonnable way to put it.  Normative part on 
what's going inside a test suite, and the part which is not normative 
and how to organize your TS.

LR: It looks like "Good Practices" of using Test Development and 
Creating them.

PC: What are your ideas about it?

LR: I like this idea to have everything in one place. Ops Handbook will 
be the guide for chairs and WG, and some information it might be 
duplicated.

LH: Chairs and Team

LR: Even better. Ops GL will be the guide with a different target.

LH: The Chairs and Team need to present to the WG directly as soon as 
possible how to work out the details.

KD: We have to be very careful to the targets. Different readers for 
different documents.

LH: Is the Handbook for Chairs and team?

KD: yes, agreed for me.

(Lynne had to left)

PC: If the handbook says nothing at all where do you get your tests 
from? You will have to address that. What would be the distinction 
between Handbook and Test GL?

KD: I will put things which belong to the WG and management issues in 
Handbook. And things which are technical for the test suite 
developpers. We should not forget the communications between the two.


PC: How will it be done concretely


LH: Lynne has said it a bit there's an overlaping sometimes. Lofton 
giving examples. (Framework for contribution process.) You have contact 
with the external word (handbook) but at the same time you might want 
how you deal practically with the test (Test GL). It doesn't hurt to 
have two things at the same time but with different target audiences.


PC: If it's not normative, it will be less a problem to have 
information at both place.

LH, KD: agreed

DM: There might be a doc technique for example.

WG agreed on moving forward and accept that the Test GL Lite to have a 
practical part under the form of GLs and have a  non normative part 
which is more a guide to deal with the process.

LH: for example, should a review process, be normative part?

PC: It doesn't really succeeded. I think it should not be normative.

LH: Yes I think I can agree with that.

DD: One thing that we could miss.  We may miss parts of requirements 
and links between different steps in submissions.  I'm inclined to be 
more stringent.

(Discussion about the test submission process)

KD: I would propose to first write the document and see in which parts 
this kind of things will belong

PC: Yes reasonnable

LH: Let's work first on a concrete things.

DD: You may want to have information because it will be asked.

PC: I have a kind of related questions to the proposed structure of 
document. The outline of the document is a kind of the structure of 
principles, small numbers with requirements, gl and examples.

(no particular comments)

KD: Do you plan to have a timeline for your principles?

PC: there's no time dependency in the principles.

LH. Yes it seems like that. Are they atomistic?

PC: the goal is to have to small independant principles

LH: So we might have modules, so we will be able to develop them 
individually.

PC: Yes Right.

* Next F2F


LH: All proposals must be sent before the end of this week with
time constraints in mail too.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 12:22:16 GMT

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