- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:22:33 +0100
- To: skall@nist.gov
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
one comment inlined On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 02:00 AM, skall@nist.gov wrote: > > QA Working Group F2F > Wednesday, 8-January-2003, afternoon > -- > Scribe: Mark Skall > > Attendees: > (Dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) > (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) > (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) > (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) > (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster) > (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) > (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C) > (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) > (MS) Mark Skall (NIST > > > Regrets: > (JR) John Robert Gardner (Sun) > (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) > (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) > > > Guests: > (WC) Wendy Chisholm (W3C) > (MM) Matt May (W3C) > > Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/01/agenda-detail > > Summary of New Action Items: > > OT – To update Action Item table. > DD – Describe what the “ assuring uniformity” in third bullet of > deliverable of > TTF means. > DD – Produce new TTF draft in 3 weeks. > KD – Investigate place in Paris to host June QAWG meeting (report Mar > 6-7 in > Boston). > > Minutes: > > LH – Will not finish specGL today. Will finish in next 2 telcons. > Thus, cannot do resolution to go to last call. That will take place a > week > from Monday. One open item left for OpsGL. Will do at Monday’s > telcon (fill > in commitment table of GL1.) Rest of Monday wii be devoted to > finishing > SpecGL. Everyone should look at draft Action Item list and make sure > we > understand and agree with it. > > OT is adjusting AI table and will update. > > Testing Task Force (TTF) > > Dd – Charter is modeled on QA WG charter. Charter is for a task force > to > ensure that guidelines in TestGL get followed by WGs > When they decide to produce test materials. > > LH – Is this to narrow for our mission? > LR - She objects to enforcement role. > LH – Mission should be to ensure that every rec has a good test suite. > Dd – Should be enforcement. > MS – We don’t have power to enforce. > MS – “Ensure” is proactive. We can’t ensure (guarantee). > KD – We can tell WGs when they do not successfully have 2 interoperable > implementations. > DH – People won’t spend a lot of time worrying about the charter. > > Editor will re-draft the mission statement. > > LH – “Enforce the use of practices” will get changed to “Ensure the > use of > practices required by the QAWG Guideline documents.” > KG – Should be “help to ensure.” > MM – Should say “advocate” and “help implement”. > Dd – Deliverables include test technologies and techniques > LR – Should the tools reside in QAWG? Should TTF develop templates to > facilitate tool development? Do we envision TTF building things? > Dd – We should not do maintenance. Don’t know about templates. > LR – Charter should allow us to optionally develop tools to help WGs > build test > materials or to help WGs conform to our documents. > Consensus – It’s desirable for TTF to build tools, resources allowing. > MM – Even a “how to” will help. > Dd – We shouldn’t be “out source” for building tests. > Consensus – New bullet – develop tools, templates and tool kits of > general > usefulness to help WGs develop test materials. > [dd] I cannot remember either voting for or abstaining from voting on templates. I agree on the rest, though. Templates will not be included in the wording I'm about to send for the second TTF draft. > Consensus – Tools to help WGs conform to our documents is the charter > of QAWG, > not TTF. > LH – Should completion of TestGL be in charter for TTF? > Consensus – No. > LH – Third bullet of deliverable should be “Assuring uniformity” > rather than > just “assuring”. > Duration of TTF – It depends on whether TTF is chartered as separate > from QAWG. > LH – We should say that we anticipate that this mission will take at > least 2 > years (mission will be long-term) and TTF is just a mechanism for > starting it > up. > Dd – Should be a WG. > LH – Doesn’t matter what it is but if we make work interesting, people > will > join. > MS – People will only join if they get management support and they > need to show > relevance, not interest. > Dd – We will not attract new people if it’s in the same WG. > MS – This will not allow us to attract new members; we will need to do > it. > LH – That supports not having a WH because we will not have the > resources to > start it. > LH – Success criteria should be worded to reflect the mission > statement. > Task Group Proposal was already discussed in Tokyo. We don’t need to > discuss > it again now. DD has already done F2F solicitation – DOM WG is happy > with idea > but no one seems to devote resources. > LH – If we have high-level W3C support, they should help get us > support. W3C > should meet in person with companies. > MS, DH – That’s not the way W3C works or should work. > MS – We should plan that the only resources are already in QAWG; if we > get > more, great, but deliverables should not assume that. > TTF Next Steps: next draft of charter, circulated to IG list; call for > participation, investigation by KD. > > Http Demo > > An http test suite was demonstrated. > > Future Meetings > > Meeting in Athens > > Dd - No connectivity, no meals, hotels may not be cheap. > KD – Had same situation in Montreal; did not provide meals; try to get > support > from universities, etc. > LH – We need an alternative for the Athens meeting. I propose France > as an > alternative > > TestGL – KG will have reduced time to contribute; cannot be lead > editor. PF > may have time to be lead editor(need 4 hrs/week commitment). > > KG – Need to address 3 or 4 issues and start ET. > > Grateful thanks to KG and Microsoft for very generous support. > > Meeting adjourned at 1700. > >
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 23:21:45 UTC