Final Minutes of 14-April-2004 Teleconference

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 14-April-2004
Scribe: Mark Skall

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) A

(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)


David Marston

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20040414-1 LR will have rough QAH-like level of completion draft for 
SpecLite by 4/26
AI-20040414-2 PC Will have rough QAH-like level of completion draft for 
TestLite by 4/26
AI-20040414-3 LH will have final text of QAH for publication by 4/27.
AI-20040414-4 KD and MS will have conformance terms in central glossary and 
synchronized by 4/26.
AI-20040414-5 MS will supply suggested wording for each of the “pinks” 
(within QA Handbook) by 4/23

Previous Telcon Minutes:


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) routine business
- Future telecons  [0]  (4/19?  4/26?)
- www-qa response needed [1]

LH: Query from XKMS requesting advice on test cases, tools, and how to 
organize into a sensible test suite.
PC: Will respond to query.
LR: Sent e-mail to Mary Brady asking her to respond as well based on NIST’s 

3.) QAF 4/29 publication

Summary:  Discussion centered on trying to get rough drafts (similar to QA 
handbook level of completion) of SpecLite and TestLite by the 4/29 
publication date.  The editors said they will try to have something done by 
that date but couldn’t guarantee it.

LH: QAF lite  first publication date is 2 weeks from today.
DH: Comments on new charter?
LR: Very well done.
DH: AC reps will get request to vote on new charter tomorrow.

- SpecLite status & plan?

LH: LR circulated new info before telcon.
LR: Took first stab at extensions module  may put on Wiki.  Will try to 
have first draft of document by 4/29.
LH: Can we have rough draft by (similar to QA Handbook level of completion) 
by 4/26?
LR: Will try but don’t know  extensions module will be discussed on 4/19 telcon

- TestLite status & plan?

PC  Unrealistic to do it in next 10 days.  Why this date?
LH  We chose it on tech plenary.  If we delay we will fall into publication 
moratorium (May 11-24)
PC  Will QAH-like level of completion by 4/26
- QAH status & plan?

LH: Will have it ready to publish  almost complete enough to publish 
now.  Enough to get feedback now.  Need a publication out early.  Will have 
final text by 4/27 for publication.

- "QA Glossary" status & plan?

LH: All conformance terms need to be in central glossary and synchronized.
Need all the words there like “testable.”

4.) QA Handbook draft review

Summary: The WG started going through the green-shaded issues of the QA 
Handbook and resolved some of them.  The resolutions included: 1. The title 
will be “QA Handbook”; 2. QA framework term will remain (and be comprised 
of SpecLite, TestLite and QA Handbook); 3. Style for the QA Handbook will 
not be second person pronouns (you); 4. “Good practice” will be used for 
recommendations; 5. Conformance section will be removed from the 
introduction; 6. Last sub-section (afterward) will be removed; 7. A 
simplified version of the chronology diagram will stay; 8. Scenarios, in 
general, won’t be a separate section except for high-level use case type 
scenarios (first 2 bullets) which will go into an appendix.


- first editors draft  [2]

LH: received comments for LR and DH but have not folded comments in.

- flagged embedded issues [2]

LH: Let’s go through and look at green-shaded issues.  First Issue is 
title.  Handbook is favored solution.  What should title be?  Consensus  QA 
Handbook.  Speclite, TestLite and Handbook still comprise QA Framework.
LH:  Substitution of test development process, etc. for QA practices 
doesn’t work.
MS: Volunteer suggested wording for each of the “pinks” by 4/23
LH: We need more examples (form Ops ET, matrix, etc.)
KD: Will provide examples.
LG: Table of Contents  need to regenerate this.
LH: Style issue  No second person pronouns (you).  Will revise.
MS: How will we write it?
LH: Will re-write in third person.
LH: Will do styling similar to module now (story, principles and good 
practice will be boxed and formatted like that.)
LH: Phasing like “quality practices”  MS will re-examine.
LH: “Good practice”, “recommended practice”, “recommendation”, etc.  what’s 
the appropriate term?
DH: Prefer “good practice”.
LH: Will use “good practice.”
LH: Introduction
MS: Why eliminate “conformance”
LR: Will turn people off.
MS: Need conformance section  it shows it’s there and doesn’t apply.
LH: Will take away conformance section but merge discussion in there.
LH: Will remove last sub-section (afterward).
LH: Will keep simplified version of chronology diagram.
LH: Scenarios don’t make sense as a separate section but should be 
scattered throughout document  will change that.  However, some don’t 
comfortably distribute throughout the document.  What should we do with those?
PC  Don’t put in separate document but it shouldn’t die.  High level use 
cases belong up front and examples of uses should be distributed.
DH  Could keep distribution by role (and all of first 2 bullets) into an 
LH: Remaining points have tentative resolutions.  Will try to target them 
at specific people.

- comments from DH [3] and LR [4]
5.) Adjourn

Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174

Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:17:24 UTC