Draft minutes of teleconf 2003-05-12

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 18-November-2002
--
Scribe: (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)

Attendees:
(dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) [partly only]
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston

Regrets: 
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)

Summary of New Action Items: 
None

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0034.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0023.html

Minutes: 
 --- Last call review of MathML
 Nobody knows if Andrew sent his review of the MathML Spec using specGL
 Lofton will send him a note to figure that out.

 --- TestGL Publication
 The publication moratorium starts Wednesday 14th, not the 15th
 Peter says he can probably do it
 LH: What needs to be done is to check that all the GL, CP are in place,
with a note in the SOTD pointing to the re-organization rather than in
the details
 ... but someone needs to do a spelling and grammar check
 ... would one of the editors be able to do that?
 ... sometimes tomorrow afternoon?
 MS: I can try but can't promess
 LH: After that, I can do the pubrules tweaking

 --- Ops GL discussion
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0032.html
 -> compendium of all the proposals on various open issues for OpsGL
 (following notes using the letters identifying the proposals in the
said compendium)
 #a: re-org proposal
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0060.html
 LH: our changes to opsGl should stay smallish to be able to go to CR
without going through another LC
 ... a significant re-org would probably mean a new cycle; we should
probably avoid that
 ... I'm suggesting to not do a restructuring, but rather a
clarification
 ... with a picture or a table
 ... to show where things enter in the lifecycle of the WG
 Kirill: Agree that we should not try to restructure the whole thing
 Dom: I like the idea of a picture, that could be appealing
 LH: will go for a table for now (not having time to make a graphic),
but I welcome any contribution
 ... Nobody objecting, this resolves the issues LC57 & LC60.1
 #b: 7 testability complaints (from dom)
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0011.html
 LH: dom gave a little bit of response on that this morning
 DH: my problem is that we don't define really what we mean by QA
deliverables
 ... proposed wording would be fine by me
 LH: 59.5 "quality assessment not well defined"
 ... how far to go? I could think to at least 15 categories of possible
quality assessment
 DH: what about linking to TestGL or TestET?
 LH: due to the current state of the Test* specs, we should probably put
it in OpsET
 LH: so, is it ok with you to give a couple of examples in the CP and
then add the other examples in ET?
 DH: works for me
 [agreement on the resolutions for the other issues]
 #c "Team comments"
 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0010.html
 LH: specific problems on 110.4 and 110.7
 ... possible confusion between the CR exit criteria and the question of
what needs to be enforced?
 ... I thought our intention was to aim for Level A enforcement first
 ... to lower the shock
 DH: It's good we don't put any enforcement rule in the spec
 ... that's something that has been clarified since we started the GLs
 ... but then, that doesn't prevent us from saying what we put behind
our levels
 ... what are the semantics we attach to them
 LH: we have the definitions on what priorities mean
 ... would adding a sentence in 1.6 be good enough?
 DH: my comment was more about the fact that it's hard to spot the
general meaning of Levels when reading quickly across the spec
 ... but I don't have a specific or good proposal
 ... besides, it's very related to the rewrite of the Introductory
section
 [agreement that it is good anyway to link 1.6 and the levels
definitions]
 LH: re 110.7, clarification about what the rework of the introductory
section should be
 DH: clarifying that it's not that much about cutting, but making it
more readable
 ... with emphasis, bullets list, etc.
 LH: I would certainly welcome any contribution
 ... will prepare a draft and ask for comments
 DH: agreeing on the other resolutions
 #d remaining sub-issues of LC72
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0008.html
 LH: 72.OG-5 about priority for CP 3.2
 ... raising it from 3 to 1 since this is a critical info for test
material
 ... I agree with the commentor
 ... which would also mean raising the priority for 8.2
 ... Not supporting errata and versioning seems really important
 KG: concerns about "versions"... Versions define new specs altogether
 LH: maybe we should clarify and speak about "editions" rather than
"versions"
 [agreement on OG-5 and 13]
 KG: I think 8.1 should be raised to Priority 2 at the same time
 LH: no strong feeling about it
mai 12 17:50:29 <Zakim> -Lynne
 [clarification on a confusion on what CP were being discussed]
 KG: I think 8.2 should only be priority 2
 [?]
 DM: new versions usually builds on backward compatibility
 ... which means that if your test materials support versioning, you can
keep them as long as they don't become moot
 KG: I think priority 1 CP are pretty sensitive
 ... if we have too many of them, that will affect the implementability
of the GL
 ... will restart the discussion on the mailing list
 LH: OG-72 
 ... (about a sentence in the discussion)
 ... mainly editorial since not in a normative part
 ... but prefered to check that there was no objection to the change
 [no disagreement]
 LH: all the other issues were pretty much editorial
 ... which close the subissues
 #f QAPD template comments
 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0020.html
 LH: Lynne and I worked on it
 ... and we think we closed all the editorial issues that were raised
 ... will circulate to the commentors to check all is OK
 #e sub-issues LC-60.3 thru LC-60.15
 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0064.html
 LH: our last issue for OpsGL!
 ... would like to get rid of it this week
 ... I'll send a proposal today
 ... Should we have a call on it? or off-line discussion would be
enough?
 ... what about booking a teleconference at the end of the week to
tackle these last ones?
 ... I will send a mail to check who could attend such a teleconf
 ... so that we could finish OpsGL smartly
 [discussion on the upcoming meetings]
 Adjourning, more by email

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org