- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:06:23 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020904155726.03080cb0@mailserver.nist.gov>
QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 04-September-2002
--
Scribe: Mark Skall
Attendees:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
Regrets:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
Absent:
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2002-0904-1 DH will re-draft the two questions to ensure that they’re
not redundant and they fit together
AI-2002-0904-2 KD and Olivier will refine the day one agenda topics list
that includes 4c and 4d (1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup plus 1/2 day
other, miscellaneous)
AI-2002-0904-3 If not signed up by Monday, 9/9/02, the Chairs (KD) will
make assignments for the techniques assessment for a GL document..
AI-2002-0904-4 Chairs (KD) should propose dates for columns 1 and 2 (QA Ops
GL and QA Spec GL) of the Assignment Matrix for the QA Framework
Reviews. Half of the dates should be before November and half after.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Sep/0009.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0157.html
Minutes:
1. Roll call, membership
See above
2. Logistical topics
LH Olivier agreed to be Co-Chair of IG and this was approved by W3M.
Olivier is working on QA Tools. A new validator will be released
soon. Olivier plans to discuss the future of WG and IG at the F2F meeting
in Tokyo. Both the WG and the IG expire in Aug, 2003. Both Lofton and
Olivier agreed that the “Week in QA” needs more work.
LH We will evaluate “Week in QA” in Tokyo. Ask IG for feedback.
3. Questionnaire last details [0]
LH - Supposed to be sent to team and Chairs list on Monday. We may be
making a mistake with the intro. The intro contains a lot of technical
detail that is not helpful in answering questions. Putting this much
detail into the intro might distract people from answering the
questionnaire. Alternative intro swept technical detail under rug. LH
thinks intro should be as brief as possible. Should we cut out hyperlink
references?
MS Leave hyperlinks in.
DH Put hyperlinks in after questionnaire
LH Agreed.
LH We will change the questionnaire reply to just Dimitris and Dom. It
will not go into any public archives.
LH Question 2 redundant with 1.
JM Can leave separate.
MS Question 2 asks if group considered it. can add that to Question 1.
DH will re-draft the two questions to ensure that they’re not redundant and
they fit together.
LH will send to Chairs list today and DH will send to Team list.
4. Frm schedules, editor changes
Most of this will be discussed during lead editors meeting ½ hour later.
SpecGL team changes - LR and DH will become lead editor for Spec
Guidelines. They will be responsible for driving issues, resolutions and
meeting guidelines. Circulate proposed publication schedule after editor’s
meeting today.
TestGL WG-only The plan is to have a draft by next Tuesday.
5. Tokyo agenda (details at [1])
A role call was taken to see who will be at Tokyo.
LH Yes
MS Yes
DH Yes.
Olivier Yes
KG Yes.
LR Yes.
JM No
AT ?
dd ?
KD Yes
SM No
PF ?
Agenda rough outline
4a. 1-1/2 days SpecGL & Extech
4b. 1/2 day TestGL
4c. 1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup
4d. 1/2 day other, miscellaneous
The above is LH’s rough outline of the division of time in Tokyo. The plan
is for the publication of all parts in October. The first pub of Ex tech
and the 3rd pub of Spec GL thus will need 1-1/2 days to discuss.
dd and LH will present and demo the DOM and SVG test suites
respectively. Everyone is encouraged to present other test suites. The
purpose of the presentations is to relate the issues we’re discussing to
concrete examples.
Olivier We need one full day for non-framework agenda items. Demos of
tools, the discussion that give birth to work in QA, and coordination with
other groups are examples of non-framework agenda items.
The order for the Tokyo agenda will be 4c, 4d, 4a, 4b. Thus:
Day 1
1/2 day Test sub-group, TA markup
1/2 day other, miscellaneous
Days 2 and 3
1-1/2 days SpecGL & Extech
1/2 day TestGL
Olivier This is good because we won’t run out of time at end for
non-framework items.
KD and Olivier will refine the day one agenda topics list that includes 4c
and 4d.
LH asked for volunteers to organize the collection of demos of test
suites. No volunteers.
LH will send e-mail to WG soliciting volunteers to show test suite demos on
day 1 agenda.
Olivier We will have wireless only connection in Tokyo.
6. Reviews matrix [2]
LH WE have 5 volunteers for the techniques assessment for a GL
document. The NIST team has volunteered for Spec GL. KD will be added to
that team. The Chairs will assign remaining people. If not signed up by
Monday, the Chairs (Karl) will make assignments.
LH We need dates for assignments and we need to coordinate with our
publication schedule. We want ½ reviews before next publication and ½ after.
LR We don’t want to do the techniques assessment until documents are
relatively stable
LH They should be done post-Tokyo.
KG What is the process for techniques documents assessment?
LH One person should serve as the editor. The team should then decide how
to work together. For each checkpoint, come up with list of techniques to
be in ex and tech document.
MS Do we need more than one example?
LH For certain checkpoints
MS Examples are sufficient but not necessary. There may always be other
ways to meet the checkpoint. Are examples and techniques normative? I
don’t think so.
LH Action items in 4th column in the assignment matrix (techniques
assessment) need to be done in the 2-week window after Tokyo to be useful
for the publication cycle. For Action Items in the first 2 columns ½ need
to be done before Nov. 1, ½ after. Chairs should propose dates for columns
1 and 2 (half before Nov and ½ after). Also, fill in rest of column 4.
7.) AI list, status review [3]
The list of current Action Items was reviewed in order to determine which
action items were completed. The following details the status of certain
action items:
Mark
07-03-3 Done
06-27-2 Done
05-30-4 Done
Lofton
08-21-2 Pending
07-31-3 Redundant, should be eliminated
Dom
08-21-3 Pending
Karl
07-31-2 Redundant with Dom’s
08-07-4 Done
03-01-9 Need to do work on this and make progress and have a draft html
document to look at by Tokyo.
Kirill
04-04-5 Done
03-08-3 Done
02-14-6 Done
06-20-1 Done
Rest of Kirill’s not done.
8. Issues List Processing
Not done. Not enough time
9. Adjourn
The telcon was adjourned at 1140.
****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax: 301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:00:09 UTC