[DRAFT] Minutes from Teleconference 2003-07-14

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)

(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)

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)

(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:  


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