- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Nov 2002 10:25:25 +0100
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1038302726.7962.349.camel@stratustier>
Please send your comments by the end of this week. ************* QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 25-November-2002 -- Scribe: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (DM) David Marston Regrets: (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) Absent: (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: AI-20021125-1: DH to check if AC meeting IRC logs are available and member accessible, and to send a pointer to the WG if so AI-20021125-2: LH to make sure GL 4 in OpsGL identify all that needs to be in a WG Process Doc Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0095.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0087.html [ draft ] Minutes: 1) Roll call See above. JR is a new participant in the WG (more below). --------------- 2) Miscellaneous * LH sent by mistake a copy of the IRC log taken during the AC Meeting to the public WG mailing list. The message has been expunged from the archives, but WG members are asked not to forward it. Since there was some interesting discussions around QA in this AC meeting, LH ask DH to see if the IRC logs are available and member accessible, and if so, to send a pointer to the mailing list. * After a quick strawpoll, the chair decices to cancel the telecons in the last 2 weeks of December, since most participants wouldn't be available * LH announces that JR is a new participant in the WG and proposes that each participant of the WG presents him/herself quicly. KD first checks with JR if Sun's AC Rep is aware of his participation to the QA WG, since after a discussion with him, KD realized he didn't know there was any Sun employees participating to the WG. JR explains quickly that his participation to this WG is probably very temporary since he was just appointed to replace Jack Morrisson. He precises that due to the current travel policy at Sun, it was very unlikely he or his successor would attend Seattle F2F meeting. Then, everybody on the call makes a short presentation of their background. JR relation to QA work comes from his participation in the XSLT conformance committe at OASIS. --------------- 3) Draft QA Process Document LR has integrated most of the last week discussions resolutions into the QA WG Process Document draft, which consist mostly of an outline of what the document shoud be: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/ProcessDoc-20021121.html PF agrees to become the maintainer of the document once it's finalized and unless anyone else wants to take on it. LR presents the draft as being divided into 3 sections: 1st, internal operations, 2nd external relationships and 3rd Test Materials. The 2 last sections match the requirements set by the OpsGL (CP 4.3 and 5.2) [1]. The internal operations come from various discussions inside the WG, and completes some aspects already present in the W3C Process Document [W3C PD] [2] and in the QA WG charter [3]. The goal of the discussion is to resolve some high level questions. 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/ 2. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/ 3. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/charter The 1st one is to know whether we want to discuss internal operations at all. LH asks what part of them are already covered in the W3C PD and in the charter, especially regarding the quorum question that araised several times, when more than half the WG members missed a teleconf, for instance. LR quickly explains what the W3C PD sets (invited experts role, voting procedures, issues addressing) but shows that it do not answer some specific questions we had. SM stresses this aspect of an internal process document is not requested in the OpsGL: it is said "A Working Group QA process encompasses all aspects of QA life within the Working Group", with an enumeration that only refers to test material oriented items. LH makes a quick strawpoll to see if people think we should keep this part of the document. Everybody seems to like it; JR is not sure of the long term value of it though. There need to be links back to the charter, also. LH will open a formal issue for OpsGL to see whether we want to have a CP for other WG to have a more generic WG Process Document (not only a QA Process Doc). Another high level question is to know whether we keep the 3 sections in a single document or if they should split into 2 or 3 ones. Keeping a single document seems easier to maintain and nobody objected to it. ----------- 4) OpsGL WG draft LH has posted a new WG version of the OpsGL [4] and sent a proposal for issues processing [5] 4. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/qaframe-ops-20021111 5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0082.html In this proposal, 8 issues that looked like uncontroversial are distinguished and have already a clear resolution proposal; LH proposes we adopt them as a batch, unless someone objects. Nobody does, and LH will integrate the resolutions in the next draft. Going through the issues that need discussion (see [5]): - for CP 1.1, LH didn't have time to make a concrete proposal, will try to do it in the upcoming week but welcomes any suggestion. The issue is that the progession is not linear, and the 2 columns are not strongly enough related to make something logical. - GL 4 verbiage (links to TS Process Doc): LH will take it offline with Kyrill who probably drafted the first version of the text. LR notes that DOM and XML Core have TS Process Doc that could be linked from there. - CP 4.3 LH needs to clarify the meaning of the "QA Framework" bullet: is it just a summary of the 5 following bullets or is it something else? It appears that the bullet can be removed, but there should be a CP making sure that a QA Process Document encompasses all the aspects related to test materials, on which LH takes an AI. - still on CP 4.3, there is an open question on whether a QA Process Doc must be public or not. LH thinks it is more useful if it is public, and DH points that the W3C Process Doc should be updated "soon" to make it mandatory that WG chaters are public, in which case this looks like a logical complement. Since no one disagrees, the CP will make it mandatory that the document is public - CP 5.3: LH will see with Kyrill offline - CP 4.6 stacked because of lack of time - CP 6.2: LH points that there has been an ongoing discussion [6] between LH, Kyrill and Joseph Reagle (W3C staff responsible of legalese questions) about the need for a Test Material License. Kyrill has an open AI to clarify his company position on the need to have a restriction in the scope of usage. Otherwise, Joseph proposed to share the discussion with the other WG chairs, so that more opinions on the matter allow to get a better idea of what's really needed. The WG agrees on this course of action. 6. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/thread.html#44 5) Adjourn Next week telecon will about SpecGL, and per Mark's request, especially on specGL conformance to itself following the review he made [7]. The next one might be on TestGL. 7. http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/11/qaframe-spec-20021108-specgl -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/INRIA mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 04:25:27 UTC