W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Draft Minutes of March 17 2003 teleconference

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:11 -0800
Message-ID: <3E77C94F.9050607@sun.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Please send corrections to me.



QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 17 March 2003

Scribe: Patrick Curran

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)

(DM) David Marston

(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI              Who   What                                                                                  Due date

AI-20030317-1   KD    Talk to Daniel and figure out who will be the liaison for Crete hotel arrangements    20030324
AI-20030317-2   DH    Publish a processing/organizing plan for SpecGL issues                                20030327
AI-20030317-3   LH    Publish a processing/organizing plan for OpsGL issues                                 20030327
AI-20030317-4   KG    Post LC comment on SpecGL to add to conformance disclaimer "if you fail a test"...    20030320
AI-20030317-4   DM    Post LC comment on SpecGL on need for boilerplate language for conformance disclaimer 20030320 
AI-20030317-5   DH    Publish a processing/organizing plan for OpsGL issues                                 20030320
AI-20030317-6   KD    Draft an addendum to oiur web-pages to list who is TAG liason, other roles            20030324
AI-20030317-7   PF    Review TestGL comments from XML Schema WG comments                                    20030320

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0051.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0042.html [DRAFT ONLY]
Boston F2F minutes: [To be supplied]


1) Roll call 11am (ET), membership

2)Start getting Crete agenda, logistics, announce to IG
 Since IG co-chairs were not present, and since Olivier usually works on the agenda, we agreed
 that we would not be able to do much just yet. Karl did take an AI re hotel logistics

3) Organizing & processing Last Call issues:
  [LH] The timing doesn't work very well - I've only just posted the last call issues list
       Two other WGs have promised comments this week, plus others are in the queue
       We can't start working productively on them yet. Hopefully two weeks from today.
       We should assign AIs for issue coordinators to review the submitted issues, organize
       them, deal with conflicting/overlapping issues.

  [DH, LH] Take AIs were assigned]

  LH will be on vacation next week
  DH will try to help LH with organizing and posting last call issues while he's away
  [QUESTION: was this a formal AI?]
  [LH] Everyone: even though last-call is closed, please post any additional issues this week

  Two additional AIs were created re the OpsGL conformance disclaimer.

4) QAWGPD [1] finish
       - Part 2 of 3 was unfinished at Boston [2], [3]
       - ancient issues [4]: #24, #45, #53, #14, #35
    [LH] We discussed part 1 extensively during Boston meeting, and Peter & Patrick reviewde part 3,
       but we need to work on part 2 (on external relationships). This material used to be in
       OpsGL but we pulled it out into this document. Wording is (or should be) similar for each:
           we get a request
           we respond
           QA chair solicits volunteer (or Task Group) to draft a response
           group endorses, or we decide to respond 'as individuals'
           we respond
       We've been working on this for over a year now. Does anyone feel the need to discuss in

  [Consensus] No

  [LH] Let's deal with the open issues:

   #24: Do we need an appeals process?
       [LH] proposes "no".

   #45: How should the QA WG interact with TAG?
       [LH] Do we need to write anything into our process doc about this?
       [KD] No real need for this
       [LH] How to close this issue? Note that we establish a liaison person (KH)?
       [KD] Record on the WG page? (Also add other role info - eg, who is editor of docs?)
       [LH] Sounds good
       [KD] takes an AI

        #53: Process for handling requests from WGs.

       [Consensus] Section 2 of QA process doc clarifies this - will become a non-issue once we
                   endorse the document.

       #14: How should Education & Outreach be carried out?

       [LH] Do we need to add something to process doc, or should we simply do this in ad-hoc manner?
            Suggest that we don't bother adding anything to process doc. We're already doing this.
       [PF] Seems to work OK in ad-hoc mode; whenever it's appropriate (F2F meetings) just do it
       [LH] Resolution: consider outreach during IG time of every F2F planning meeting

       #35: Should we provide resources to other WGs "for building test materials"
       [PC] No - this would be a very bad precedent
       [DD] Seconded
       [Consensus] We can't afford to do this (and not desirable)
                   We don't have the resources, nor the domain expertise.
       [DD] Make it explicit what we may do (work on general tools, frameworks)
       [DM] What if we were designing a test-case description language? Would this need tweaking?
            Should clarify: if there's a tool/schema that comes from QA, we may help
       [LH] Yes - we may provide generally useful tools,
       [DD] However, uniformity of implementation is desirable
       [DM] There may be a need for extensibility/customization
       [LH] This is a TTF charter issue - let's discuss this again when we cover this
       [Consensus] keep the issue open, to be revisited when we discuss the TTF charter.

5) TestGL [5]
       - Peter's email/issue [6]
       - XML Schema comments [7]

   [PF] Which co-editors will work on which sections?
   [PC, DD, KG] promise to respond soon
   [PF] We have only one checkpoint - provide a prototype - for guideline 4: test case development.
        Do we need more?
   [KF] We said we'd analyze what we removed during restructuring, so we can see whether we missed something
   [PC] This area is covered in OpsGL
   [KG] Maybe the guideline will migrate completely to OpsGL
   [PF] We should review all sections first, before we reconsider this
   [LH] Did we have an AI to circulate list of removed guidelines/checkpoints?
   [PF] Yes: PF owns it - due this Thursday
   [LH] We should review the comments from the XML Schema WG
   [PF] takes an AI to do so

Other business

   [DD] Reports on DOM WG's response to our Last Call - they can't make our deadline. They want a couple of
           weeks extra time.
   [LH] Two weeks is pushing it. Can we get interim comments earlier?
   [DD] Probably not. Suggests we continue on...
   [DH] Suggests we should be willing to accept comments, but not promise that to respond since they've
        missed the deadline.
   [PC] Agreed
   [LH] We should tell them the sooner the better
   [DH] Agrees to draft a message.

Ajourn 12:30 (ET)

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qawgpd-20030103.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/f2f
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0029.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html
[5a] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/qaframe-test-newoutline.html
[5b] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-test-20030317unn.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Mar/0049.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/qareview20030314.html#notesTGL
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 20:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:33 UTC