Final minutes of QA WG teleconf 2003/11/26

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 26-November-2003
--
Scribe: 
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Regrets: 
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Absent: 
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)

Summary of New Action Items: 
AI-20031126-1 Karl to review I18N charters and report to the WG by
2003-12-06

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Nov/0053.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/mid/20031127102029.C10101@hyperion

Minutes: 
2) routine business
   KD: haven't yet had the time to make my proposal
   ... but will do so for 8th of Dec
   DH: The meeting I'm organizing will happen at the very start of
January
   
-------
3) QA report from AC Meeting
   KD: a good session
   ... got the usual questions
   ... "worry about having more than 2 participants, even for dedicated
test suite development"
   ... maybe we should try to clarify this kind of FAQ in our documents
   ... e.g. how to do it? 
   ... this may allow to get more participants in WGs
   ... and would avoid the infamous "we don't have enough resources to
apply your GL"
   ... I also contacted Jonathan Marsh from MS
   ... they have difficulty finding QA people
   ... so no guarantee of further participation to the WG
   ... so I have to remind him of what he told me 
   ... and see if they still want to be listed as participant WG
   ... WRT Real, the AC Rep was aware that they are listed as
participant
   ... but didn't know Peter was not able to participante anymore due to
his new responsabilities
   please call me in now
   ... he told me he would be looking to see if he could find someone
else
   ... we may get more participation from Real or MS, but nothing sure
   LH: slides of the presentation somewhere?
   DH: http://www.w3.org/2003/11/qa-ac-japan/ (Member-only)
   ... irc log of the presentation:
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/18-ac-irc.html#T02-27-25

------
4) Monthly in-reach reports
   KD: very good news
   ... I attended the WCAG F2F with Olivier
   ... they are working on their WD of WCAG 2.0
   ... want to reach LC in January, CR in June
   ... they agreed to try and implement the QA Framework (Ops and Spec
for now, Test later)
   ... they really want QA for their specs
   ... e.g. testability is a big concern for them
   ... They thought 1st that WE would be doing the work for them
   ... but we clarified that the GL are here to help them do it
   ... Olivier has agreed to be in charge of helping them understand and
use the QA framework
   ... He'll make a review of the charter and the specs in the next 10
days
   ... The DOM WG definitely said no to the framework
   ... they are moving to REC and want to wrap up their work
   DD: the DOM WG has tried to implement as much as possible of TestGL
   ... they said no the the framework as a whole by lack of resources
   ... but they're going to pick the bits that are interest for them in
the framework
   KD: The SVG WG (through its Team contacts) agrees on applying the
framework
   ... but I don't have a QA contact there for now
   ... Lofton, could you see with them to get such a contact?
   LH: they had a F2F 2 weeks ago
   ... before that, I sent a message to Chris and Dean about our
in-reach efforts
   ... I offered (as a SVG WG member) to wear 2 hats, being the QA
contact for the SVG WG
   ... not sure it was a good idea or if it was better for them to look
someone independant of the framework
   ... decided to do so because they are very busy going forward
   KD: will you have time for it?
   LH: I guess if I consider it as part of my QA Job
   ... which makes sense since that's the focus of the WG
   KD: you should make it clear that you do it as a SVG WG participant
   ... so that it doesn't confuse the role of the QA WG
   ... I also discussed with the I18N WG
   ... they would happy to push it
   ... I accepted to make a review of their charter
   ... since they'll recharter very soon
   AI Karl to review I18N charters by 2003-12-6
   SM: same situation as Lofton for the XML Core WG
   ... I'll be doing the reviews of the charters and the specs
   KD: if you can find someone else to do the job, it is better
   ... or at least, it depends on the type of participation you have in
the group
   ... e.g. if you're a regular participant, that's ok
   ... otherwise, it might be difficult for our WG and the target WG
   LR: actually, SM IS the QA moderator of the WG
   ... (and a regular participant)
   DD: I'll try to report something
   ... in a week from now (next telcon)
   DH: I'm going to focus on the MMI WG
   ... made a 1st quick review of the spec

-------
5) TestGL Survey
   VV: sent it 2 days ago
   ... got feedback from DH
   ... 1st question: what should be the scope of the survey?
   ... only TestGL? or also Ops and SpecGL?
   DH: I think the survey should not be focused on our GL, but rather on
the development of Test Material in general
   DM: what is the goal of the survey?
   VV: right now, the survey is based on TestGL
   ... the goal is to get an idea of how the current test practices
relate to what we preconize in TestGL
   DM: then it should also include OpsGL
   ... we should focus on the aspects of Ops and Test (and others) that
does not relate to Spec dev, but to TS development
   SM: I noticed that the questions are basically the CP from our GL
   VV: I need to rework the questions to have them more gentle
   ... and not assume that the responders have read the GL
   LH: part of our motives was to have better research of what's going
on out there
   DM: so this is not self-assesment
   VV: yup, I'll work on making this clearer
   DH: the goal IMO is to get a better idea on how people have dealt
with test materials development
   LH: also, I think we really need to focus on Test
   ... given that Ops (and Spec) GL are in CR
   ... and Test has yet to go to LC
   DM: I think we need to look at Ops still
   ... because there were questions of overlap between Ops and Test
   VV: any other questions I should ask in the survey?
   KD: I think the list of questions is good
   ... I'm trying to read it as a person who haven't read TestGL
   ... and it seems clear enough
   ... Only issue: the introduction is focussed to much on the framework
   ... doesn't need to be there
   ... suggest removing it or putting it at the end of the survey
   ... we should stress that we want to get feedback on practical
experiences
   ... e.g. tools they have used or built
   ... Also, some questions seem very broad
   ... e.g. "what approaches do you take when developing tests"
   ... we'll probably want to divide that further
   ... We also need to be careful on the length of the survey
   ... if it's too long, people won't answer
   DM: I notice that the questions pertain to different stages of TM dev
   ... I would start by question 0 "how long your WG has been in
existence"
   ... then the planning questions (e.g., 1, 5, 13 as "will you...?")
   ... then the TC gathering phase (e.g. 2, 3, 4, 14)
   ... phases: overall planning, assembling test cases for 1st
publication, publishing test cases and post-publishing
   ... Then each WG can stop at the stage they've reached
   ... and we can survey the "young" groups later on too
   KD: Dom, do you think we can use WBS for that?
   ... and can we keep open for a WG depending on its development stage?
   DH: Yes wrt using WBS (technical details to be checked)
   ... No wrt keeping it open
   ... but probably better that way, so that we can see the evolution
through several surveys
   KD: ok
   ... another question to add to the survey: at which stage of your
spec development did you start developing your test cases?
   VV: should I give examples?
   ... and if so, which?
   KD: e.g. 1st WD, CR, Last Call
   ... Another question, maybe not wise
   ... "do you think the test materials has helped the WG in the
specification development?"
   DH: think we should not be that precise
   ... more generally ask about "the benefits the WG got from the Test
Material Developments"
   LH, KD: agree
   VV: ok
   ... I'll integrate that feedback
   ... what about the formatting of the survey?
   DH: don't bother with that, we'll deal with it later
   KD: esp. if we use WBS
   LH: what are our plans with this? and when?
   VV: I'll mail a new version by next Wed.
   KD: so the goal is to release it by Dec. 15
   LH: but that's just before the holidays
   ... should we postpone to start of January
   VV, DH: yes
   VV: will send an updated version, then
   KD: thanks VV for you work!
   VV: please send any further feedback by email

-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org