[DRAFT] 04-April-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes

DRAFT MINUTES
QA Working Group Teleconference
Friday, 4-April-2002

Scribe: Jack Morrison 

Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
 (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
 (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems) 

Dave Marsten

Regrets: 
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
 (DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
 (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)

Absent: 
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
 (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items: 
A-2002-04-04-1 - KD - update next week on F2F status
A-2002-04-04-2 - LH - reserve bridge for next meeting
A-2002-04-04-3 - OT - Resolve issue of central bibliography in QA Framework: Introduction
A-2002-04-04-4 - LH - split Issue 49 into two separate issues.
A-2002-04-04-5 - KG - clarification of conformance section in OG
A-2002-04-04-6 - dd - provide proposed wording on how external tests are to be accepted by the WG

Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Apr/0012.html


Minutes: 

Housekeeping Items: 
1. Discussed that those editing the website using Amaya need to be careful about document types as under some circumstances the editor will change the type from Strict to Transitional. Also, the AI list is out of date and needs to be updated (see below).
2. Discussed adjusting the meeting time to allow Asia and Europe to participate at more reasonable times. Postponed any decision until next week as most members from Europe were unable to attend today.
3. Karl is working on organizing the next F2F, should have more information next week,

QA Framework Document Schedule:

1. The editors felt they would be able to post the latest drafts this weekend, WG only, including the two new documents. 
2. The original goal was to have the first Technical Report for ALL the documents done by early April, but postponed it by a month. There was some discussion about whether or not we could be ready before the next AC meeting, and we were reminded that we need to meet the pre-AC publication deadline, which as a week or so earlier than the meeting. DD felt the Specification Guidelines (3A) might not be ready, but that the Operational Guidelines (2A) would. It was asked that the editors think about whether Operational Examples and Techniques (2B) could be moved up so the first draft was before the AC deadline.

Issues:

The rest of the meeting dealt with a review of the Issues List.

42 - Where should the Taxonomy document be kept?
CLOSED - After some discussion it was agreed that for now this could stay as a separate document.

20 - Should the QA WG web page have a central bibliography index to notes and other documents?
CLOSED - Olivier to resolve.

24 - Appeal process when QA WG rejects a request from WG
POSTPONED - Was discussed if this needed to be in the QA process documentation. Postponed until Issue 53 is resolved.

33 - Guideline for minimum level of WG commitment to QA
CLOSED - the table has been revised but level 3 is still the minimum

37 - Coordination of QA work with external entities
CLOSED - See Chapter 3 of OG

38 - Resolutions of external QA requests
CLOSED - See Chapter 3 of OG

28 - Test maintenance task force
CLOSED - See Guideline 8

29 - Should there be a checkpoint about publication of testing results?
CLOASED - See Guideline 6.7

40 - Test Materials home
CLOSED - The overlap between documents has been resolved.

17 - Where should conformance test materials reside after a WG disbands?
CLOSED -

19 - Should each Framework document have a "Glossary" appendix?
CLOSED - The Introduction explains some terms and points to a QA Glossary. Agreed we would take out the reference, as long as everyone dealt with defining terms when they first used them. Currently this is not in the Specification Guidelines.

57 - Use of RFC2119 in Operational Guidelines
CLOSED - This was discussed at length, and a number of examples were reviewed. The conclusion was that "Should = Must, unless you have a very good reason why not". Agreed on recommendation "b) Keep using the keywords and specify in the conformance clause that for each subset of checkpoints having the same priority, keywords "MUST", "SHOULD", etc. in the checkpoint text and in the description text must be honored as prescribed in [RFC2119]." Kirill to add clarification to conformance section for next public draft.

39 - Use of Keywords SHOULD, SHALL, etc
OPEN - Agreed that for the next public draft (after the WG drafts), we must review the guidelines and checkpoints for normative usage.

49 - Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and distribution of test materials?
CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test suite license and it was quite restrictive. He is working on rewording it and when done feels we might be able to use it. Lofton to split this issue into two:
59 - licenses under which external contributions are accepted by WG;
49 - licenses under which WG provides its test materials to the public; 
Dimitris to provide proposed wording on how external tests are to be accepted by the WG.

Next Telcon:

LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 4/08. It was felt that in order to have documents ready prior to the AC meeting that another a couple of special calls might be needed. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday, 4/11/02 at 2:00EST. The agenda will be to review the Specification Guidelines, using the same baisc format used for the Operational Guidelines checkpoints.

Next Meeting
Thursday, April 8, 2002
2PM EST

Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.