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

[Draft] minutes of face-to-face meeting 20041027 morning

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:56:07 +0900
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041027125607.GA17124@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Below are the draft notes from the morning session, day one, of the
face-to-face meeting of the QAWG/IG in Reading, UK (hosted by the Open
Group).

Meeting participants, please review.

**********

[Dom on] QAWG future:

[[ Summary: the working group will continue and at least push SpecGL
through LC, what happens next will depend on how well we manage to get a
good response to this publication ]]


W3C management discussed QAWG future last week with Dom. Resolution was
that the group could continue until last call/january, and that response
(buy-in, participation increase) to LC will be the criteria to
re-evaluate whether WG continues.

-> could stop after LC and do a WG note or proceed to REC, with hope
that we could skip CR (~ webarch)
-> need to show that the WG is still working hard and motivated (recent
participation on calls not a very good indicator in this regard, new
person from Boeing good). Maybe more people from Sun(?). Recruiting
effort not done yet if we want to do things beyond spec.


-> would be good to show that several W3C documents are applying our
guidelines already at LC

Karl remembers last CR call. implementability hard to prove, versus
implementation. Useful versus used. Need a plan to be very active in
getting testimonials(?) of people using our docs [event outside of w3c -
NIST, atom(?)]

When do we decide to go to LC? depends on whether we close outstanding
issues here at f2f.
depending on that...
dom and lynne will work on SPEC during Karl's vacations, then karl will
polish things up ~ 15 nov.

SpecGL much better now, need to get more people reading it (and they may
be impressed). Invite people (we know) inside WGs to push for WG review
of our LC documents. TAG too.

karl: Need to prepare how to do interop report

need to think of LC packaging - have alternate version split into
blocks?

*****

[Dimitris on] Test GL

It is unlikely that the working group will be abole to work further on
TestGL. 
Dimitris will report on test frameworks research findings, also working
on an informal testGL. 
Will be interesting to have if we were to restart work at some point...

Dimitris also notes that our work on testGL was out of sync with what
WGs actually do. 
He will send his impressions.

*****

IG News and IG future

[[ Summary: the IG has not been very active, except for tools
development. Considering how the tools development could be expanded to
more tools, with member participants. Planning to revive community
discussion on www-qa list. ]]


IG not very active beyond tools development. 

Tools interest people, very useful communication mechanism. Dialogue
with community.
If we wanted to expand open source to include member participants, it
won't be easy. Companies are wary of giving away code. 

Patrick thinks it would be difficult to get more participation in
developing tools, but we would be getting much more response. Thinking
of ways to (re)package software, contributing and channelling through
the IG.

Risk that it could become a code cemetary... Dom thinks that if we have
material, we will have some dynamic to get people involved.

karl: do we have a prospective list of tools? dom: Plenty, but that's
not how we would seed a group. karl: would be good to have scope to show
people interested in contributing.


IG survey - no surprise, would need a lot more energy to animate it, or
interaction between WG and IG.
Right now IG (except tools) is more of a repository of comments and
announcements, not a community

Karl: a community cannot be forced to happen. Notes we do not fuel it a
lot. 
We could be a hub for all things about quality at W3C, not just stuff
about the QAWG.

Dom: other aspect is that the IG will be maintainer of published
document, and where any possible new effort for a WG will grow.

Lynne: redirecting QA discussions to the list?
good idea, small risk that this could outgrow scope of the W3C/QA, but
even then, it could bring new ideas and perspectives.

In any case, the IG will stay, at least as a low-level maintenance place
and knowledge sharing place. Could have projects and have some people in
the IG form task forces.

Month in QA : not much to report in the last months, but it's been a
very good resource, and useful for the author to get immersed in the
WG/IG work. Could ask Richard to give it a look after he managed to look
at docs. Another idea is to ask him to write up something about his
starting within the group. olivier will do it for the current period.


********

TAG/webarch comments

we haven't followed up on the webarch comments. Karl thinks the
modification made are going in the right direction, satisfying. Need to
check with Lofton, but no objection with approving the changes/closing
our issues.


********

Chairing the QAWG / QAWG calls

Everyone acknowledge how Lofton did a great job as a chair, and thanking
him for all his work. 
Reflecting upon chairing by Karl in the past months. Karl asks how we
could we improve the way the wg is managed. 
-> Give the agenda earlier. 

+Discussing meeting schedule.


***********


-- 
olivier
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 12:56:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT