W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > March 2002

Re: DRAFT MINUTES 02-08-02 QAWG Teleconference

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:10:17 +0100
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
To: Jack Morrison <Jack.Morrison@Sun.COM>
Message-Id: <EF8E8128-3605-11D6-BCCA-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
No substantial points (as I wasn't there), however, I do recall 
communicating my regrets to Lofton in off list email.


On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 08:20 , Jack Morrison wrote:

> QA Working Group Teleconference
> Friday, 8-March-2002
> Scribe: Jack Morrison
> Attendees:
> (DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
> (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
> (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
> (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
> (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
> (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
> (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
> (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
> Regrets:
> (PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
> (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
> (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
> Absent:
> (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
> (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
> Summary of New Action Items:
> A-2002-03-08-1 - OT & KD – update web pages to reflect new name
> A-2002-03-08-2 - KD – Inform director of name change
> A-2002-03-08-3 - KG – Definition of priorities to be added to 
> Operational Guidelines
> A-2002-03-08-4 – KD – investigate impact of guideline related to call 
> for participation on the overall W3C process
> A-2002-03-08-5 – KG & LH – Clarification of Guideline Checkpoints
> Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
> qa/2002Feb/0016.html
> Plenary F2F Minutes: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/03/01-f2f-minutes
> Minutes:
> LH opened the meeting with an explanation of the objective, which was 
> to work on Issue #55 - Checkpoint Priorities in Proc&Ops
> need to be confirmed. He also mentioned that the first WG-only drafts 
> of the Specifications Guidelines and Operational Examples and
> Techniques were to be released next week.  This led to a discussion 
> about resolving the name of the Process and Operational
> Guidelines document. It was felt that some good discussion had taken 
> place on which name it should be, Operational Guidelines or
> Process Guidelines. A roll-call vote was taken on the two choices:
> Daniel Dardailler - Operational Guidelines
> Karl Dubost - Operational Guidelines
> Kirill Gavrylyuk - Process Guidelines
> Lofton Henderson - Operational Guidelines
> Jack Morrison - Process Guidelines
> Lynne Rosenthal - Operational Guidelines
> Mark Skall - Operational Guidelines
> Olivier Thereaux - Operational Guidelines
> It was agreed that the document be renamed QA Framework: Operational 
> Guidelines.
> The rest of the meeting dealt with Issue #55, Checkpoint Priority. The 
> only comments that had been distributed by email were from
> LH, so the discussion started with a review of his comments.
> LH Comment 1 was related to the criteria used to set priority. LH felt 
> that currently the use of priority values was arbitrary, as there
> was no definition. Most members agreed that this was true and that some 
> definition was necessary. The use of MUST SHOULD MAY
> was discussed, as was the verbiage utilized by WAI. It was agreed that 
> something needed to be added to the specification to define
> how priority was arrived at, but that that was a long discussion itself 
> and more difficult that what was defined in the WAI document. It
> was also agreed that one of the things we were trying to achieve with 
> the WG effort was defining a process that would cause good test
> suites to be generated but make sure that they be done early enough to 
> be useful. This lead to the comment that the definition of
> priority must be oriented toward the goal of high quality, timely 
> production of test materials. KG agreed to develop a draft set of
> definitions to be included in the Operational Guidelines, have LH 
> review them and then distribute them to the rest of the group for
> review. The question of how to rank things today was discussed and it 
> was agreed that high quality, timely production of test materials
> should be kept in mind.
> LH Comment 2 - After the Technical Plenary it was obvious that there 
> was a universal issue related to resources. Given that, LH felt
> that Guideline 2.2 – In charter, address QA staffing requirements, 
> should be changed from Priority 2 to 1. There were no objections.
> LH Comment 3 – Related to comment 2, there was a long discussion about 
> whether a new checkpoint should be added that mentioned
> specifically recruiting QA people during the Call to Participation 
> phase. The overall ramifications of this on the W3C process were
> discussed, as the CFP was usually distributed by the chair/co-chair. It 
> was a concern that if we wanted to change the definition of the
> Activity Phase that we would need to change the W3C process, but that 
> if it was part of the charter then it was up to the individual
> working group. It was also mentioned that there were two parts to the 
> resource issue; 1) defining the resource requirements, which we
> already require, and 2) obligating people to provide resource, which we 
> do not. It was agreed that, for now, a new guideline, 2.3,
> would be added to stating that the Call for Participation needed to 
> clearly indicate that members needed to contribute QA resources.
> KD said he would look into the CFP issue from a W3C perspective.
> LH Comments 4 & 5 – Normative language was discussed a lot during the 
> discussion on Comment 1.
> LH Comment 6 – The wording on guidelines 1.3 and 3.1 make it unclear 
> what the difference is. A couple of members mentioned this
> and LH agreed to re-write the definitions and distribute them via email 
> for comments.
> The remainder of the meeting was spent going through each of the 
> Guidelines and discussing the priority.
> Guideline 1. Integrate Quality Assurance into Working Group activities.
> 1.1 In Charter, determine level of commitment to QA. Plan to have at 
> least a commitment to "QA level three".
> [Priority 1]
> It was discussed whether Level 3 was the correct level for this 
> checkpoint, as the definition of the levels changes. It was agreed that
> more time was required for review of this item, but that for now it 
> would stay P1.
> 1.2 In Charter, identify QA deliverables, expected milestones
> [Priority 2] -> [Priority 1]
> It was discussed and agreed to that to ensure “high quality, timely 
> production of test materials” that this should be a P1.
> 1.3 In Charter, identify QA criteria for WG deliverables milestones.
> [Priority 2]
> KG & LH to work on new wording for this section so that it is clearly 
> differentiated from 3.1, but it is still a P2.
> Guideline 2. Define resources for Working Group QA activities.
> 2.1 In Charter, address where and how conformance test materials will 
> be produced.
> [Priority 1]
> No change.
> 2.2 In charter, address QA staffing commitments.
> [Priority 2] -> [Priority 1]
> Given the previous discussion and concern about getting resources 
> committed, this was move to P1.
> 2.3 As part of Call for Participation, define the need for members to 
> contribute QA resources
> [Priority P2]
> This is a new guideline. KD to investigate it from the W3C process 
> perspective. KG to add to draft for Monday.
> Guideline 3. Synchronize QA activities with the milestones for WG 
> deliverables.
> 3.1 Align intermediate milestones for QA deliverables with WG 
> deliverables milestones
> [Priority 2] -> [Priority 3]
> Discussed what this guideline meant and how it related to 1.3. KG & LH 
> to reword it so it is clear in relationship to 1.3. Also agreed,
> after the discussion, that as reworded it should be a P3.
> 3.2 Synchronize publication of QA deliverables and specification's 
> drafts.
> [Priority 2]
> Initially it was thought this might be included in 3.1, however there 
> was not enough description on what it meant and a number of
> different perspectives were presented. Needs clarification that it has 
> to do with Public distribution, but remains a P2.
> 3.3 Support specification versioning/errata in the QA deliverables.
> [Priority 3]
>  Discussed if this belonged here or in Guideline 8. Needs to be made 
> clearer, but can stay as a P3 for now.
> Guideline 4. Define the QA process.
> 4.1 Define the goals and scope of QA development
> [Priority 1]
> Discussed that this includes goals and non-goals and is similar to 1.1. 
> Might want to expand 1.1 and use this as an example. KG to
> think about how it fits and update the specification for Monday.
> 4.2 Produce the QA Process document.
> [Priority 1]
> Discussed this for a while, but did came to no conclusion. KG asked 
> everyone to review it and make sure it made sense.
>  LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 3/18. It was 
> agreed we would decide at next Thursday’s meeting if the
> meeting was necessary. LH proposed we split the Thursday meeting into 
> 1) a discussion of the progression of the new documents that
> are coming online 3/11, and 2) a continuation of the discussion of 
> Issue #55. LH also indicated that #55 was a higher priority, as it
> needs to be done as soon as possible.
> Next Meeting
> Thursday, March 14, 2002
> Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 17:10:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC