- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:04:16 +0300
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
June 16, afternoon Scribe: Patrick Curran New AIs Dom & Lynn: estimate the dates for Spec GL Due: before we leave Crete Daniel: create outline of document presenting arguments for value of "QA now" Due: 1 month Daniel: draft new WG and IG charters Due: 1 month 1. New EO project(s) -- cost-now vs. cost-later for QA QA cost now is cheaper than later Daniel: should we write a paper explaining this? Who to target: the WGs or the members (who would fund it)? Would be good to target the members - need a business-oriented argument Dom: might be difficult to persuade people that this is true Patrick: the argument works inside Sun Daniel/Karl: convince people that the "cost" later is lack of interoperability Patrick: the saving is in test development (share the burden) Daniel: do we need make arguments re compliance with 'monopolists'? Karl: some people don't care - eg, "we only need to develop for IE" Daniel: agrees Mark: provide good test suites and people will use them Daniel: anyone want to volunteer to write this paper? Business justification Two different cases: addressed to a monopolist and a non-monopolist Dom: how would we ensure that the document reached the right people? Daniel: potential WG members could use this to convince their own management Patrick: repeated the arguments he used to convince Sun to participate We will get out more than we put in Lynn: there can be a competitive element to this: if vendor 'a' submits, vendor 'b' might follow suit quote a success story Daniel: the financial argument (pick up these free test suites) is secondary; how do we convince people that compliance is important? Karl: convince the consumers (example: need for well-structured documents) Daniel: couldn't convince his daughters Patrick: don't try to convince the end-users, but an IT head will be easier to convince Mark: user-demand, or government regulation will convince people W3C has been successful in convincing people that standards are good AI: Daniel to create outline of this document (due in 1 month) Karl: post the outline, encourage discussion on mailing list 2. List policies / logistics review Lofton: do we need an anti-spam mechanism? Respond by email to submitter. Dom: explains how it works We don't actually have a problem - this is moderated No need to change current policy 3. Other IG and outreach topics TBD Olivier: briefly lists documents they are working on for the QA library Daniel: how do we decide what to work on, how to prioritize? 4. The Framework/GL specs, per GL (Ops/Spec/Test) * status update * changes to goals? (Rec track, etc) * immediate next steps * medium-range plan/schedule Lofton: we should try to get the docs to "good enough" status asap, so we can move on to other stuff. Status: Lofton: Intro is in decent shape - only a few issues. Since not normative, this should probably be converted to a Note. [ = ET ] Ops GL/ET Spec GL/ET Test GL/ET Public Working Draft 5th 4th 2nd (LC) issues 0 (all resolved) 90-95% resolved no issues Revised text (after issues) 75% [0%] 60-70% [0%] N/A Verify text (ed draft) N/A Review revised text Disposition of Comment responses Publish WD Publish WD Negotiate DoCs with submitters Next publication (what state?) CR+ [ET done] CR+ [ET done] Final goal? TBD TBD Ops: changes since last draft are relatively minor. No need to publish another Last Call. Republish another working draft for convenience of readers. Then we can go to CR (Candidate Recommendation) Spec: discussion whether we should go to another Last Call. Lofton - other Chairs believe that if there are significant changes we should not go to last call. Dom believes that we are still substantially the same document - can go to CR. Daniel: we could do a special CR (leave it in this state for several months). Discussion: should we convert to Note? Lofton: we could simply ask WGs to fill out checklists (while our docs are in this extended CR state) - there would be no need to conform. Karl: wonders what the benefits would be Dom: this would enable us to gather feedback (we'd have to ask for it). Karl: we would get an idea of how well we're doing Lofton: we didn't get a lot of feedback Dom/Daniel: we did pretty well - don't downplay it Daniel: make the checklists good quality - should point to real-world examples Lofton: this means we would have to improve Examples & Techniques Discussion: should we try to keep Ops and Spec docs in sync? Not necessarily. Fill in the dates. Lofton - believes conservatively he can reach the LC state within 6-8 weeks. Spec will probably take 4-6 weeks more. AI: Dom & Lynn to estimate the dates for Spec GL Daniel: duration of the Special CR? at least 6 months. Synchronize the ending period (for next year's Tech Forum)? Lofton: what about Test GL? Should we go straight to Last Call? Dom: don't go to Last Call just because this is the only way to get external comments. If we're not ready, don't do it. Goal: LC after October meeting. Can we do this, while people will be working on SpecGL? Needs an ExTech before we can publish. Lofton: should we suspend it until we have time? Continue the discussion after we've covered this doc during the next couple of days. Patrick to take lead editor role? He will consider. Lofton: we shouldn't publish another version before LC. Lofton: is Recommendation where we want to end up? (Daniel has argued that this may not be appropriate - Note may be better.) Dom: mildly agrees. 4. Expiration of QAEG and QAIG charters * recharter? [assume "yes"...] * proposed Statement Of Work for next 1-2 years * staff & member resources for new SOW * drafting a new charter * when needed? (for final draft?) * who? (for initial draft?) * how? (QAWG review cycle?) * when initial draft? What to do once we get the docs completed? Suggestions: docs, templates, outreach, feedback (publish best practices that have been adopted by others), review of other WGs' docs. Reviewing the current charter's deliverables * maintainance of an up-to-date QAWG Web site (/QA/WG/) OK * timely minutes of teleconferences and face-to-face meetings OK * up-to-date matrix of specifications/QA activities (a.k.a. The Matrix (../TheMatrix.html)); OK * glossary of QA terms and taxonomy (../Taxonomy.html) used in W3C; OK * improved editor guidelines for specification writers (aka pubrules++ (/2001/01/qa-ws/pp/susan-lesch-w3c.html), including conformance section, list of testable statements, list of explicit discretionary behaviors, etc...) This is SpecGL - new charter should state that we will continue to work on/improve Examples & Tools * report on QA review of specification conducted Rewrite as ongoing proactive reviews of other WGs' specs Or - do we want to create a summary report? Can we create a feedback loop? How to capture best practices? We are committing to ongoing reviews, and to working to improve ExTech docs make it clear that these are connected * issue resolution related to appeal/vagueness/interpretation of specs Delete this - the WGs must define their own processes * proposed changes to W3C Process Document (/Consortium/Process) and standardization cycle (from early draft to Candidate Rec, going to the AB, as the group responsible for the evolution of the W3C process) Rephrase this to refer to OpsGL (parallel to the SpecGL rewrite) * report of review of QA tools conducted in the activity (WG or IG) This is similar to the stuff in the TTF charter Should we have a separate task force? Think carefully about how to phrase and balance/prioritize to bring in new blood * a framework/process for developing, managing and running tests (data driven, platform independent, formal output language for results - e.g. EARL (/2001/03/earl/), etc) This is Test GL/ExTech * Promoting existing Notes on QA as W3C Notes and developing new ones An IG activity? An ongoing activity - no need to call this out explicitly as a deliverable Proposed TTF Charter Which of these general deliverables from TTF charter should we move to the new charter? * Provide information on existing Test Technologies and techniques used and developed by Working Groups in the W3C and other interested parties (information can be documents, tutorials, web sites and so forth) * Provide on-demand expertise to Working Groups seeking to produce such materials * Assure uniformity in Test Frameworks and Techniques produced, as explained in other QA WG documents (ensure that tools conforming to QA WG Test Guidelines documents are used and, where applicable, reused by as many WG as possible). * Develop tools and tool kits of general usefulness to help WGs develop test materials, resources allowing. What to do with the detailed "for example" list of potential deliverables from TTF charter? Link from WG charter? AI: Daniel will draft new WG and IG charters within one month
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 07:05:19 UTC