- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:53:10 +0000
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes [DRAFT]
Monday, January 27, 2003
Scribe: Andrew Thackrah
---
Attendees:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(DM) David Marston
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C)
Regrets:
(JR) JohnRobert Gardner (Sun)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
Absent:
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
Summary of New Action Items:
AI-2003-0127-1: LH to write up mark up needs for issue tracking of
comment form. Due Wed 5th Feb
AI-2003-0127-2: DH & LH to give OT a checklist table comment skeleton
like those on review page. Due Wed 5 Feb
AI-2003-0127-3: LH to produce list of specific topics for targetted
comments . Just a protoype for WG input. Due Wed 5 Feb
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0143.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: [ Not available ]
1) Roll call 1600 UCT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2a) Last Call details
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- PR entrance criteria for SoTD of GL docs
[ LH explains that there are two interpretations of the PR
entrance criteria: to have two WGs implement all of the spec.
requirements or to require that each (priority 1) checkpoint is
implemented by at least two WGs. The latter is easier to achieve.
Points out that this is the approach taken by SVG ]
LH - For current current GL rules - barrier is too high. The
latter interpretation - cf SVG is a lower barrier. Should we use
this?
DH - So priority 1 checkpoints are part of entrance criteria -
maybe targeting lower barrier is better to help guidelines be
applied quickly.
I don't know if all checkpoints are doable but at least Pri. 1
and probably Pri. 2. Since Pri3 are nice but not necessary then
it shouldn't be a problem
LH - I'm happy to go with Pri. 1 & Pri. 2 for now. Since this is
only last call We can deal with Pri. 3 later
[ LH to draft the OpsGL status section. Check AI for 8 Feb - this
AI already
exists so will roll this work into it rather than create new AI here ]
- Targeted reviewers LH - At start of letter - global
questions: Do we want to target legal process
people or just informally ask them to comment?
DH - makes sense to send a targetted review. I will send contact
details for legal, comm and process. LH - Comm were
interetstind in specGL, Process in OpsGL
As for the other people on the list - do we want them to comment
on all docs? Or are there others in the list who will have
specific interests?
LR - [@@ Sorry, didn't record this - too quiet! Lynne: please
edit this]
LH - For the last 3 groups we can add after their name
'especially OpsGL' etc
LR - Prior to sending are we going to have personal contact
LH - No, this is standard procedure LH - We did say that
we would send individual letters (14 of them).
DH - we should send once to a list of 14 names + the three Legal,
Comm & Process
LH - after I list the 3 docs - there's a paragraph, boilerplate
statement, is this ok?
[ no objections to keeping it]
LH - Should we link to almost ready docs, to give them a
preview?
DH - I guess it can be more confusing than helpful. Already
published versions
will give them an idea if they are interested.
[ last paragraph to be struck]
LH - When we ask them to commit - we promise them a
review form. It's not
finished yet - maybe show them a work-in-progess taster?
[no objection to this - LH to add text about this]
LH - should the targeted message be to chairs, team or both?
DH - to chairs is enough
[no objections to this] 2b.)
Olivier's draft LC comment forms
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OT - Should we handle issues resulting on usual issues list or on a
separate
page?
LR - I would rather have these issues tracked separately.
OT - It will need some exra work to support this
KD - would be nice to have a markup version - do you have an
example?
OT - I will send a pointer to qa-wg list. You can check his (?)
version of the script LH - Should we use same markup as current
issues list? I'm not entirely satisfied
with current system. It's ok but I wouldn't chose it if I were,
starting again.
KD - Describe your needs - could be a kick start for Olivier and be
useful
throughout W3C ** AI: LH to write up mark up needs for issue
tracking of comment form, due Wed 5th Feb
OT - The form is almost done but we have to chose how to divide
the doc. so that people can send a comment. Do we divide in
sections like the doc? or in Guidelines and checkpoints?
I prefer to divide by GL an CP. Pepole want to comment more on
susbtantive rather
than editorial points.
LR - I agree. maybe take checklist table and add a comment
LH - DH & I could give OT a skeleton like those on review page. OT
can use this
OT - sounds good, I would like by same date as markup (05-Feb-2003)
** AI: DH & LH to give OT a skeleton like those on review page. due
Wed 5 Feb
LH - [@@ which doc??]simple form by TOC or comments on intro
without sorting by section? OT - If you're talking about form only 2
choices: 1)simplified form 2)pulldown
menus with applicability field
LH - I favour a separate form. This will lead to some discussion but
probably not
issues. We are going to last call with it as a working draft but
it may become a note since there are no conformance requirements.
[no objections to this approach]
OT - A list of special points connected to targets. LH - So
instead of specific topics like section 1.6 we'd say 'clarity, detail' etc
** AI: LH to produce list of specific topics for targetted comments .
Just a protoype for WG input. due Wed 5 Feb
3) TTF
~~~~~~
[skipped as DD not present]
4) Tech Plenary per-WG EO plans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Thurs PM volunteers?
LH - David has voluteered to visit Xquery/Xpath. DM - They
will be mainly meeting Thursday/Friday LH - We may have a breakout
session Thursday PM so other non-chair team memebers will
have time to work e.g. on outreach - perhaps visit MMI? Anyone
want to do this?
[ poll of those present who are as yet unconfirmed... either no
one can make or wants to do it]
AT - not there, [KG - no ] DD - unlikely MS - I probably
have a meeting then, SM too
PF - prefer not to.
LH - so outreach team is LH, DH, KD & OT. We need to invite ourself
to these WGs.
anyone know a good approach on how to contact?
DH - Don't make it too formal. LH - We should make it clear
that when we say observe that we are doing it for our benefit (to
learn from them) and not to judge them
6.) Wednesday plenary QA participation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OT - After the chairs meeting there is a tech plenary. We have a
slot for horizontal activities. I'm not (yet) involved in
organisation of this slot. One topic will
certainly be the glossary. Maybe we will talk about QA a little.
I doubt we will have chance to present a talk about QA though
MS - who will be on panel?
OT - I don't know. But will let you know when I find out
5) Karl's contribution about the "EO kit"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ Ran out of time to discuss this ]
KD - I would like people to send comments on my email
DM - don't think I got it (the email)
LH - it's reference [5] on the agenda
KD - comments will be appreciated
LH - we have 4 telcons before Boston. Next telcon we must take
resolutions about last call. I propose that we try to re-start
this
KD - ok, I will send a reminder to the list to raise discussion
LH - aim to decide this by next Monday
AOB
~~~
[ None ]
Adjurned at 1700 UCT
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 12:53:22 UTC