FInal minutes DOM WG telcon 20020918

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 18-September-2002
Scribe: [dd]

(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)

(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(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


Previous Telcon 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 
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 
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

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

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 10:28:03 UTC