- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:52:52 -0700
- To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Looks like I did not send the last week's minutes - sincere apologies ================================================ QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 14-July-2003 -- Scribe: Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) Attendees: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (DM) David Marston (W3C) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems) Regrets: (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) Absent: (DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: [Format: AI-YYYYMMDD-N Who What DEADLINE] AI-20030714-1 Lofton Send email on possible accommodations in Boulder N/A AI-20030714-2 Lynne Send official QA WG response to CC-PP done AI-20030714-3 Lofton Reply on ET-1 issue with agreement and pointer to the templates 20030728 AI-20030714-4 Lofton To prepare the reply on issue GC-2 20030728 AI-20030714-5 OLivier/Karl Prepare a reply for issue GC-6 20030728 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jul/0027.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jul/0033.html Minutes: Welcome a new WG member Vanitha Venkatraman from Sun Microsystems. Routine business - about October f2f [5] Lynne gives an update on the requirements for a face-2-face in NIST, Boulder. There are certain security rules in place, which include: - all non-US citizens should provide their passport number, DOB to Lynne 4 weeks in advance. - wireless has not been confirmed yet, but there is a good possibility. Lofton gives details on possible accommodations, will send email. Lofton runs through the agenda. CC_PP review: Lynne's response to CC-PP will be sent as official QA WG response. 3. Resolved-to-Closed endorsement - OpsGL package ... [1a], [1b] No one commented on those, so editors will proceed with "as proposed". 4. (Default) Endorsement of SpecGL issue proposals: - 19 ungrouped issues [4] No one commented on those, so editors will proceed with "as proposed". 6. Schedule [7] revisited. Taken from the draft minutes from QA WG face to face. LH: 2nd column. 5 lines down. We decided in Crete that before we do the CR text, we publish another Working Draft. There is a confusion between the row 5 and 6. Lynne, for Spec-GL would a published WD be better or a WG-only draft would be sufficient to negotiate with LC-issue submitters? LR: WG-only draft would be sufficient. LH: Then I would suggest having a Working Draft before CR Director call. I will be unavailable for 1 month starting from 5th September. If we can get to the Director-CR call, CR will have to be postponed one month. LH: Let's postpone further discussion for col 1 and 2 to the email lists. Need to talk to Karl. The issues I have is whether we are talking about 3 publications of Ops-GL or 2 and whether the timing is adequate. LH: The 3rd column, Test GL. Discussing with Patrick possible dates for Test GL publication. Lofton suggests to have 11th August for a teleconf on a WG-only draft for the Test Guidelines. PC: Agreed. LH: Before we go into other agenda items, anyone has any preferences for teleconfs for the next 2 weeks? Let me know. LH: Suggests to go through a few issues that came along from Ops-GL and Spec-GL LC review. LC-77. - ET-1. Lofton to reply with agreement and pointer to the templates. - ET-2, ET-3: finished - ET-4 Released. Answer by CR we will have adequate Spec-GL ET released and we will continue to evolve this. - FR-1: Daniel is working on it. Are we setting up a QA process similar to ISO9000? True. LR: I can take a look and send my feedback - FR-2: Daniel is working on the outline. - GC-1: Proposed response is that tools building is our next phase. - GC-2: Would be nice to have a diff application for specifications. This might be somewhat beyond our scope. Action Item: Lofton to prepare the reply. - GC-3: Spec Templates. We think this is outside of our scope, and more in the scope of the Comm team. - GC-4: Proposed to somehow recognize the value of non-WG members in QA deliverables. LR: I'd suggest to answer that we agree in principle and will look at what could be introduced to encourage external reviews for specs and contributions to test materials. DM: Or may be a higher level requirement that a WG had a close look at testability? LH: That is probably a part of the W3C Process already. LH: We'll look into whether we can add something to the Introduction or some high level checkpoint to that effect. GC-5: No response needed. GC-6: This might be a part of GC-3 as having Glossary as part of the prescribed sections. Action Item: Olivier and Karl to prepare a reply for GC-6. Adjourned at 13:00 EST July 14th.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 11:52:53 UTC