Draft Minutes QAWG Telecon 1-May-2003

Please review


QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 1-May-2003
--
Scribe: Lynne Rosenthal

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
Guests:
(DM) David Marston (IBM)
(JR) Joseph Reagle (W3C)

Regrets:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
  (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent:

Summary of New Action Items:
[Format:
AI-20030501-1   KD and JR: to explore venues for resolving License issue, 
including creating an alternative license.  date?
AI-20030501-2: JR to send link to new grant wording.   1 May 2003.
AI-20030501-3: JR to write a sentence on the ‘use’ rights  1 May 2003.
AI-20030501-4: LH to draft new text for Define level of commitment  8 May 2003


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0004.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0225.html


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) Ops Guidelines [1]
CP5.3 closure -- TM License [2]
Discussion:  Need a way to close this issue impeding our progression of 
OpsGL. Have had discussions with JR regarding licenses for test 
materials.  Propose a way forward:
1. In CP 5.3 and 6.2, to document current reality and require WGs to 
document these aspects of their processes.
2 fix the wording of CP 5.3 and 6.2, remove reference to draft “TM License”
3. AI to Karl to carry issue to larger member forum
Endorsed.
Concern that although we have made some progress  e.g., documenting the 
background - the problem is that key participants are not available when we 
discuss this and not available to resolve the confusion.   We could have a 
special Task Group to progress this issue, but the member companies must 
commit to participating on the TG.
JR explain why he wanted examples (XML, Schema) removed  because these are 
based on an ad-hoc grant, but since then there is a more generic grant that 
should be used.
Please send comments on proposed text for CP5.3 and 6.2 to LH.
LC-72.10: Seems to be a difference in the interpretation of the document 
license use of ‘use’ between Sun Microsystems and W3C.  JR and PC will work 
on this.  To close the issue, until there is a consensus on the ‘use’ 
rights, put some type of indication that there is some problem with using 
the licenses.  PC proposes that there be an alternate license, just doesn’t 
want the document to recommend the licenses.  Proposed text will say that 
there may be problems with using the current licenses, that they may not 
satisfy all situations. JR to write something about the nature of the 
‘use’

Commitment-table-group [2a]
Table sets up conformance scale that conflict and/or redundant with SpecGL 
and other OpsGL requirements. Propose to replace the table with 3 new 
checkpoints, that are  P1, P2, P3  1.1 Commit to uniform conformance to A 
level, 1.2, Commit to AA, 1.3, Commit to AAA.
Issues  1) table out of date, 2) table useful? Even if up to date and 
correct, it sets up a different conformance scale.  No, table conveys, at a 
glance, the relationships of the items and that you can have parts or 
combinations of items.  Why set a CP that says you commit to a subset of 
things, when to satisfy the CP, you need to pass all the things.  Creates 
confusion. Does someone want to make a Table from the new 
checkpoints  e.g., here are the top 10 things that you commit to if you 
commit to A.  Question of orientation and circularity.   Suggest changing 
wording of proposed checkpoints to indicate you would be satisfying all 
A[A][A] of the OpsGL.  Have a table that shows the relationships and 
interconnection among the items.  What was the purpose of the Table?  One 
of the early things a WG should do is define their level of commitment to 
QA activities.  Define your commitment and quantum of commitment.  The 
actual commitments are measured by what you actually have to do  and those 
things are called out in other checkpoints in OpsGL, SpecGL, TestGL. In the 
Table are things that are being called out in the other GLs.  Why do we 
need any of this stuff.   One checkpoint: Define your commitment. And then 
for each document, the WG determines which level they commit to, can have 
mixed levels.  LH to draft new text.   Need to look at Table, and compare 
it to SpecGL and TestGL and make sure that nothing is lost.  The only thing 
that is lost is the commitment to create test materials. Is there a 
checkpoint to commit to partial test materials and then a checkpoint to 
commit to test materials?  ‘Commit’ is part of process, which is in OpsGL.

LC-56 accessibility/OpsGL [2b], confirm LC-82 resolution [2c] and 
chronology & GL/CP [2d]
Proposed text, please look at these and if possible, provide feedback.

3. Adjourn


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0002.html
[2a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0052.html
[2b] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0054.html
[2c] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Apr/0231.html
[2d] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0060.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues