FINAL Minutes 2002-05-02 QAWG Teleconference

FINAL MINUTES
QA Working Group Teleconference
Friday, 5-May-2002

Scribe: Jack Morrison 

Attendees:

 (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)

(DM) Dave Marston
(S) Sandra Martinez (sandra.martinez@nist.gov)

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

Absent: 
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
 (PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
 (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems) 

Summary of New Action Items: 
A-2002-05-02-1 - dd - provide text for Checkpoints 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 by cob tomorrow (05/03/02)
A-2002-05-02-2 - dd - provide text for Checkpoints 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 by cob tomorrow (05/03/02) and
			remove bulleted items in Guideline 13 description
A-2002-05-02-3 - KG - draft issue statement for Charter 3 (Issue 62)
A-2002-05-02-4 - LH - draft issue statement about Ops Guideline dealing with existing working groups
A-2002-05-02-5 - KG - forward need CHECKPOINTS/GUIDELINES to LG by cob tomorrow (05/03/02) and
			distribute to WG for review prior to pub cutoff.

Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Apr/0100.html

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Apr/0113.html


Minutes: 

1.) Roll call 
See Above

2.) Any WG Logistical Topics 
Many of the members are travelling today so the website and logistics items were skipped

3.) Any discussion about FPWD Ops-Extech 

LH	The scope of this release is to define some case studies. Should probably explain that a new section on General Remarks, but do not have time before publication cutoff to write it. 
ALL	Team felt this was okay and that for now 3 case studies was sufficient, as long as the Introduction was updated to explain this is the first draft and that additional details will come later. 
LH	Other than that, some basic cleanup and a pub rules check it was almost ready to do.
LH	When trying to write case studies for Ops-Extech felt that the way the checkpoints are currently written in the Ops Guidelines deals with new projects and that the checkpoints are different for an existing Working Group. Probably need to write something that applies equally to all groups. The first 6 or so checkpoints all use the word "charter", and maybe should not. Could we instead put in the Methodology section something that describes how an existing WG can achieve the checkpoints ?
KG	We should probably keep it as is and just add in notes about what existing WGs need to do.
LH	Since we can not decide this quickly we will leave it open to after the public draft is release. (Lofton - If you did not notice, I added an AI to you to create an issue here - Jack)

4.) Continued checkpoint review of  Ops-Spec Guidelines (Lynne)

Guideline 6
LR	Explained what the objective of the section was. 
ALL	Everyone appears to be okay the way it is, so no changes are required.

Guideline 7
KG	Since we are not going through the Priorities should indicate that in the Status
LR	Will add the note before pub release

Guideline 12 
dd	Explained why the sections are here in general. 
LH	In the description, paragraph 2, need pointer to the xmlspec.
dd	Will send link to LR by tomorrow.
LH	Appears checkpoints 12.1, 12.2 & 12.3 still need to be described.
dd	Wanted to make sure that all the overall guidelines are okay
LH	AI dd to provide description of checkpoints 12.1, 12.2 & 12.3 to LR by COB tomorrow. (05/03/02)
ALL	In CP12.2 need to define what is meant by "intended behavior" and how it is connected to the test assertions.
ALL	In CP12.3 discussed what needed to be in this guideline, that the terms are not yet defined, and will be defined later, but we do need to document what it means

Guideline 13
LH/dd	Need to be clear about the terminology. Testable statements make up the test assertions. Testable assertions are synthesized from the testable statements and are a superset/group of them
LR	Not sure there is a distinction between the terms, what was meant in CP13.1 was that everything should be testable and you must have a way to get at the specific items that need to be tested.
LH/KG	Not all testable assertions are defined in the specification and we should not imply they all should be.
LH	AI dd to provide description of checkpoints 13.1, 13.2 & 13.3 to LR by COB tomorrow. (05/03/02), and remove bulleted items in Guideline 13 description.

Aside to Chapter 3
LH	Since it is not defined maybe we should take this out of the draft ?
dd	The section should probably stay even if just as a placeholder. We need to define how the W3C will endorse the specification guidelines. 
LR	Is supposed to cover endorsement by the W3C ?
LH	I thought it was more about the interface between the various group ? If we are not sure then I feel we should leave it out for now and create an issue around it.
MOST	Agreed to drop it for this draft
LH	AI KG to develop draft issue statement for Charter 3 (Issue 62)

Guideline 7 (cont.)
KG	Is the usage case definition "once included in the specification the usage case becomes normative" acceptable ?
DM	If you add "unless otherwise specified" it is much better
ALL	Agreed

Guideline 8
LH	In CP8.2 change "should be" to "to be"
LR	Will try to make the CPs more general and hash out the specifics when we review priorities

KG	I have two additional (CHECKPOINTS or GUIDELINES ?) that I would like to have added to the spec, if there is no strong objection.
LH	I do not think we should add them unless the group has a chance to review them. 
KR	I will forward them LR and the rest of the WG today. If no one has strong objections THEN we can put them in. 
ALL	Okay.

Guideline 9
LH	Definition of Class of Product from dd will be in the next deaft, not this one.

Guideline 10
LH	This will be a controversial guideline. There are a lot off issues here.
LR	CP10.3 basically means do not break things that are required functionality

Guideline 11
LH	We are already over the time limit and so unless there is strong objection to this one. 
ALL	Hearing none ...

5.) Adjourn 

LH 	Asked who was going to the F2F. KG, SM and LH said they were going. Discussed the need for dial in/out capability for the F2F and felt it would be helpful. LH will check with Karl. 
LH	Next meeting will probably be in 3 weeks, LH to send out mail and poll members.

Next Meeting (tentative)
Thursday, May 19, 2002
2PM EST

Meeting adjourned at 3:35PM EST.