- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:27:58 +0200
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <FD67364C-D092-11D6-88A4-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
QA Working Group Teleconference Wednesday, 18-September-2002 -- Scribe: [dd] Attendees: (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (DM) David Marston, guest (QAIG) (OT) olivier T, guest (QAIG) Regrets: (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) Absent: (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: AI-2002-0918-1 KD to find out if W3C bridge can call back any particpant or just W3C staff, and how it works AI-2002-0918-2 OT and DH to produce a list of people who have received the Specification Authoring questionnaire and also send it to all who have not received or replied to maximize reply rate, due Sep 20 AI-2002-0918-3 LH to reply to the questionnaire for the QA WG AI-2002-0918-4 dd to produce a report of the results of the questionnaire and also a list of people to contact for the discussions that will come up, due before people start travelling to Tokyo F2F AI-2002-0918-5 KD to make up list of groups with publications near publishing status; origintaing groups may want to discuss with the QA WG AI-2002-0918-6 [old action item revisited and updated] Write proposal of forming Test Group, also find out who may be interested in the W3C; present this during Tokyo F2F AI-2002-0918-7 dd to suggest a different six half-day division by email (wants more time for spec authoring and test group issues) AI-2002-0918-8 KD to create the table for QA WG publication schedule Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Sep/0042.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa- wg/2002Sep/0036.html Minutes: 1. Roll call done. 2. Logistical Topics KD: action item to find out if bridge can call back only w3c staff or others also (dd asked since paying international regular rates, no tollfree number available in europe) 3. Questionnaire Follow-up LH: suggestion to send the questionnaire to spec-prod list. dd: probably reduntant DH: interesting suggestion, since we want to contact editors directly dd: agree, but then contact editors directly OT: can produce a list of subscribers and list of people that have already received the survey LH: ot, you take an action item? OT: I do, due 20/9 (AI on ot and DOM to send to whomever has not gotten or replied to the questionnaire) LH: we have about two thirds replies so far DH: some WG have replied several times, failry good reply rate LH: ot, target message to non-responders to maximize response rate LH: I should reply for the QA WG dd: primarily responsible to be the contact for these issues as well as generate report, action item to produce a report before travelling to the F2F, due for Friday 4/10 [no objections] 4. Tech Plenary logistics LH: we have to by the end of september give reply as far as the QA WG need are concerned - we will meet at the Technical Plenary - Mark and Lofton expressed that the group meeting be held in the end of the week; NIST people may not be able to attend Mon-Tue LH: should we meet for two days? should we meet Thu-Fri? [all]: two days seems the better option LH: Thu-Fri as preliminary reply Sept. 30 LH: are we flexible about meeting days? Probably no LH: number of people to attend? dd: not sure KG: not sure DM: 50-50 AT, PF; we have to ask LH: for the plenary? MS 50-50 for wednseday LH: KD, OT, do you have a picture of what groups we may want to meet with? KD: maybe ask on the chairs list OT: good idea to ask groups if they want to meet us, maybe even better to say that "if you reach CR around that time, maybe you _do_ want to meet us LH: good suggestion, karl do you take an action item to identify possible publications? LH: other groups with significat overlaps? not that many (svg, dom, xslt) LH: do we allow external observers? yes dd: proposal to set up extra curricular meetings w/ spec-prod, chairs, pubruls group etc. KD: interesting idea. henry (the W3C webmaster) will be attending the Tokyo meeting maybe LH: might scott boag (IBM) be interested in attending the meeting? DM: probably yes, we need to produce some kind of prototype LH: want to discuss it more in detail in the F2F tokyo dd: until F2F will write proposal for forming of test group, action item to find out who may be interested in these issues, presentation during the Tokyo F2F 5.) Tokyo agenda - Demo session for test materials, markups, * SVG and WebCGM: Lofton * XSLT: Kirill * DOM: Dimitris * SOAP: Kirill * HTTP? LH: goal of the demos is not to show the UI, rahter the underlying technology LH: time slots to be discussed off call - Demo scope, goals, time constraints - Update "Agenda" section? dd: action item to suggest a different six half-day division by email (wants more time for spec authoring and test group issues) 6.) Frm schedules, ET issues - Revised schedule proposal LH: comments overall? objections/suggestions? [no objections] KD: action item to create the table for QA WG publication schedule - TestGL telecon (9/25?) LH: proposal to have a teclon a week from today, led by kg - SpecGL SpecGL review (volunteer?) KD: asked janet daly to find someone who is not accustomed to spec gl to review it - Post the pubs schedule on Website - ET issues (#68, 67) [3] LH: schedule depends on how we think they relate to the spec gl parts. for reference, the wai stuff has the gl part as a rec and the et part as a note. they all explicitly say that the gl part is considered to be stable whereas the et part is expected to evolve. wai considers to et part to be more volatile. does it have any normative relationship to the gl part? in wai, no. LH: propose to close issue 68 along the lines of either publishing in tr as note, or keep it as a draft in wg space, not even publish in tr LH: stop publishing them, continue to develop them in wg space according to a schedule and leave a final disposition (not/tr/doc in wg space) to be determined. objections? DH: prefers to have a extech to be published as wd before they reach some maturity KG: keep them in qa wg space, since the extech parts always evlove LH: midly in favour of wg space, not strongly though [poll] for posting in wg space: 6 for publising in tr space: kd, dom DM: no opinion OT: wg ok if we try to do as if it were on tr (as far a quality is concerned). jm similar comment. lh similar comment. LH: issue 68 should not be closed since we do not have unanimity. any objections of gl pointing to the et parts in wg space? [no objections] LH: gl-et coordination on wg or ig list? OT: ok with wg option - GL-ET questions [2]: how to verify a CK? 7.) GL language clarity issues (Karl, [5]) KD: small amount of time from next week's telcon to be taken for this. 8.) Issue List processing [3] - issue processing order per [4] 9.) Adjourn adjourned 17.35 CET
Attachments
- text/enriched attachment: stored
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 10:28:03 UTC