RE: Draft minutes for QA WG Telecon 2003/02/10

My sincere apologies for not being on time to scribe today. I'm ready for next week.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:09 AM
> To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Draft minutes for QA WG Telecon 2003/02/10
> 
> Please send comments on these minutes by end of this week.
> 
> QA Working Group Teleconference
> Monday, 18-November-2002
> --
> Scribe:
> (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
> 
> Attendees:
> (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
> (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
> (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
> (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)
> (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
> (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
> 
> Absent:
> (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
> 
> Summary of New Action Items:
> AI-20030210-1 Dom to update the skeletonization XSLT to the new markup
> grammar and generate the skeletons for SpecGL and OpsGl -> 2003-02-12
> AI-20030210-2 PC to draft the materials -> 2003-02-18
> 
> 
> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0051.html
> Previous Telcon Minutes:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Feb/0047.html
> 
> Minutes:
> 2) LC comments and IG distribution
> Issues distribution to www-qa, lofton and issue raiser as decided by
> email
> 
> Karl will announce QA LC when Henri announces the publication. LH
> congratulates the WG for reaching this milestone.
> 
> 4) Reviews
> Dates have been moved to 2003/02/24 (2 weeks from today), so that we get
> some feedback before Boston. New skeletons to be generated, Dom to take
> care of that.
> 
> 
> 3) 17 February telecon reschedule
> LH tries to find a reschedule date: Tuesday 18, 12:00 EST seems OK, will
> try to get a reservation on Zakim
> 
> 5) Boston outreach kit
> PC: key message to be defined from the suggestions on the ml. LH sent a
> good summary on what everybody was saying:
> 1. sell the case to do QA to the WG
> 2. what should the WG be doing
> 3. how should they do it?
> 4. Feedback from the WG: what do they want from us?
> 
> Deliverables:
> * short presentation (10-15 min time slot, 6-8 slides)
> * backup material
> * address the different levels of experiences and commitments: if people
> are already sold, #1 doesn't need much time; on the contrary, if they
> are not, it'll need lots of time.
> MS notes that most people at W3C are sold to QA, but it's much harder to
> get a real commitment from that.
> PC: the key message is hence not "QA is important", but "we know you
> know QA is important, but you actually need to do it".
> LH: #1 should not be about why QA is good, but how QA can actually make
> you save time and money, as it has been shown in Karl's and LH's slides.
> MS: the point must be about priorities: QA resources shouldn't be cut in
> cases of shortage.
> LH quotes a slide showing how QA reduces the cost of developping a
> specification. A low effort in QA can bring a huge amount of benefits.
> PC confirms this view; for instance, just writing test assertions can
> bring a lots of
> MS points that writing a good TS is still costly though.
> PC still thinks identifying test assertion is quite cheap.
> MS agrees, at least because it helps make the specification more
> testable.
> PC summarizing: TS can be costly, but the cycle of development as a
> whole gets cheapers; besides, low QA investment (such as identifying
> test assertions) can bring big benefits.
> KG notes that vendors  often duplicate work on test suites, while when
> the WG do that on their usual work, the vendors benefit from the
> overlap. MS and PC fully agree.
> PC welcomes any other ideas.
> 
> "#2: What we want people to do" and "#3 how we want them to get there"
> should be easier since we have a lots of material. Points to make:
> - do it from the very beginning
> DM: identify what you think will be the test assertions, the different
> kind of products
> PC: 2 bullets for "how':
> * @@@
> * practice of developing a spec, and what a QA approach is for that
> (think 'testable' all the time)
> DM: between 'what' and 'how', probably need to give some sense of a QA
> Toolbox; part of the work on QA is a toolbox to make at least the
> problem approachable, by easying problems analysis.
> PC: this is what I would have in the #3. Seems there is less comments on
> #2 and #3, probably because there is more materials; is that good if I
> produce a draft on which you could comment?
> LH: looks easier to deal with
> KG: is the "how" a good time to compliment WGs that do the right thing?
> PC: there is a value to that; a procedural question first: will people
> take the materials with them?
> DH: those should be on the Web anyway
> PC: so, it's probably a good idea to list some WG with links to backup
> materials
> DH: try not to forget any group!
> MS: can be a little tricky politically, indeed
> 
> PC: next steps -> I draft a proposal, circulate it and try to get some
> email discussion before next week.
> LH: will you draft something for all the bits?
> PC: that's what I thought doing, but if someone wants to jump in to
> help, that would be great
> LH: independently about the main body you're talking about, it would be
> a good idea to produce some quicktips with additional details. 2
> Quicktips: one for OpsGL, one for SpecGL
> PC: sound reasonnable.
> LH: will try to get a volunteer for the quicktips offline, since we're
> out of time
> AI-200310-2 PC to draft the materials -> 2003-02-18
> Need to assign 2 AI for the quicktips (deadline will be next week's
> telecon)
> 
> --
> Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
> W3C/ERCIM
> mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 16:47:47 UTC