[Revised] DRAFT minutes QAWG teleconference 20020117

Without any strong objection, I'll send this to the IG list in a couple
of days:
 
Working Group Teleconference
Thursday, 17-January-2002
----
Scribe: 
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems) 
Attendees:
(DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston (Lotus)
Regrets: 
(SA) Selim Aissi (Intel)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
Absent: 
(KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
 
 Summary of New Action Items: 
ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-1: dd to check Katie's Status wrt WG/IG
ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-2: lofton to collect people's attendance plans (both IG and WG)
for the technical plenary
ACTION: A-2002-01-17-3: lofton to reword #44 and #9 or create new issue 
	wrt imported TS quality check and "endorsement"
ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-4: lofton to see if we can reserve bridge

Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Jan/0025.html


Minutes:

1) role call
ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-1: dd to check Katie's Status wrt WG/IG

2) tech plenary
 
dd: discussions about trying to meet with other horizontal groups
 + agenda for meeting on friday (IG/WG join?)
dd prefers focused wg meeting,but we can spend some time for IG+WG

lofton : do we need to start coordination with other groups?
dd : there will be i18n, wai, di -> we can join in and discuss coord about review
lofton : splitting and go evangelize during the week
dd : interesting, although plenary session will be there for that chance to introduce framework

ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-2: lofton to collect people's attendance plans both IG and WG

DECISION:  no need for specific horizontal groups meeting


3) QA framework
3.1) status of framework
LH: got strong direction about scope of intro, conformance, etc
... few individual comments.
... extremely valuable contribution from ian: 
... toc and detailed outline+editorial comments
... (consistent with what decided previously)
... working to revise documents accordingly

idea is to post other WG only draft tomorrow

LH : between this WG only publication and FPWD publication,
...routine editorial stuff
... we've accomodated most reactions we've had
... want to publish before feb 1st
... what we'll have tomorrow will be a good step towards being ready for TR

DD : do you really think that after pub changes will be only editorial?

KG : we're not going to solve every issue now, let's not try to get unanimity 
... but try at least to get some consensus on some issues


3.2) discussion on priorities (numbers or MAY SHOULD)

DD : fine with me not to have priorities in FPWD,
... can remove, but problem with conformance chapter

DD : should + priorities at the same time is bad
.. should choose one or the other 

KG : priorities are easier to edit

agreement of removing MAY SHOULD etc and replace with priorities

DD : it's not removing normative vs informative
all comes from conformance clause

what verb to use then : no must should may, just actions
make declarative

after new draft: review cycle?
may need discussion on priority levels 
LH : maybe should wait until we expose to public to reach consensus on priorities
waiting for strong objections but if not, we'll not try to reach consensus on that before it goes public
important to make it public before techplen

agreement on keeping the priorities there. 

3.3) spec guidelines

Dimitris and Lynne will start an outline for the spec guideline.



4) Issues

4.1) closed Issues
#18 : working draft. resolved.
#21 : managing WG only drafts. resolved
#26 : just talked about
#41 : trivial editorial : upgraded stylesheet

4.2) Issues discussion
 - horizontal groups issue	
maybe should postpone further discussion about it
not on critical path for trying to get published


 -#9 and #44 "where test material should reside"
apparent consensus on intent (free availability)


"buried" issues are:

- whether/when to import, as opposed to letting the suite be developed
by an outside organization.

- endorsement and quality check of imported TS

issue endorsement (adoption) of a testsuite by WG : it's in the checkpoint already
DD : are there checkpoints about quality of TS?
... explains concept of relative priority
... see issue 15 -> email thread about it -> valid conformance claims etc
... same question : endorsement of testsuites

Question raised :  what about non-finished testsuites

DD: We need a set of vocabulary to describe a testsuite
... basic effectivity, access, etc, etc

we can have a look at oasis method, make it normative

checkpoint for "non-proactive, weak endorsement" 

Is this a new issue or rewording of issues #44/9?

ACTION: A-2002-01-17-3: lofton to reword #44 and #9 or create new issue 
	wrt imported TS quality check and "endorsement"

DD : should reward WG that developed and endorse TS


5) next meeting

LH: next  in 2weeks? (31st jan)
... if a lot of activity/comments, 1 week extraordinay meeting.

OT: needs a few days before publication

DECISION: additional : monday jan 28th  2PM EST 
ACTION:  A-2002-01-17-4 : lofton to see if we can reserve bridge

LH : we can then either use thursday slot as usual or release it

*** Meeting adjourned after 1hour 38minutes ***


-- 
Olivier

Received on Sunday, 20 January 2002 19:59:06 UTC