minutes of 20041201 QAWG telecon

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 01-December-2004
Scribe: Lofton Henderson

(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)  -- guest

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)  regrets
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)  regrets
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C) regrets

(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)  absent

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20041201-1:  Karl  -- Restore the minutes template to be the correct 
format -- 20041208
AI-20041201-2:  Karl -- find W3C documents about different WG roles (Chair, 
team contact, spec editor, test manager, etc) --  20041208


Previous Telcon Minutes:


At 12:16 PM 11/29/2004 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:

>  Agenda
>  =====
>  Scribe:  Lofton
>  Chair: Karl
>1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership


>2.) routine business
>         * News in the field. SpecGL adoption

KD: HTML working group will review SpecGL.

>3.) Other Spec Reviews against SpecGL
>         Lead: Karl
>         We need to find implementation proof of SpecGL [1] WD LC. Then a 
> list of assignments will be presented to the QA WG to make reviews of 
> others specifications.

See Karl's email of this morning,

KD:  main goal of reviews is to ensure that our 9 requirements of SpecGL 
are met.

Ruby:  Lynne yeah I'll try.
SVG 1.1:  Lofton okay for January 1st.
CC/PP:  Richard (tbd)
MathML:  Dom (tbd)
SMIL:  Patrick (tbd)
CSS 2.0: Tim.  Question do you want 2.0 or 2.1?  The differences are more 
than minor.  2.1 is what is being implemented.
KD: if CSS 2.1 is better implementation proof for SpecGL, do that.
TB: there is also some implementation of CSS3.0 modules.
KD: explains his problems with ill-defined conformance landscape of 3.0 (no 
umbrella spec).
Tim -- accepts to do CSS 2.1.
XML 1.0:  Dimitris (tbd)
WCAG 1.0:  Olivier (tbd)
XSLT 1.0:  Dave accepts.
Xinclude:  Mark accepts.

DM:  by when do we want to have 2 implementations of each feature?
KD:  ... (scribe missed the answer) ...
DM:  deprecation problematic for 1.0 features.
KD:  don't wait till the end, send reviews to him early.
...(lotsa discussion missed)...
MS:  accepts Xinclude.
MS:  what are we supposed to do in these reviews?
KD:  fill in the SpecGL ICS.
MS:  identifies problem with scoring specs against SpecGL, when the specs 
were written before SpecGL.
LR:  SpecGL says it is summarizing current practice of W3C.
KD:  the QA team (KD, DHM, OT) are trying to sign up specific groups to 
implement SpecGL principles.  (those groups are:  CSS, WS??, DI)

>4.) Test Document
>         Lead: Patrick Curran
>         Update on the document?

Missing Patrick, we skipped this item.

>5.) Test Leader/QA Manager Profile
>         Lead: Karl
>         If we had to write a "job announcement" for a Test Leader in a 
> WG. What would be the announce? A volunteer to draft something?

KD:  "Test Leader" -- trying to define a profile, would help the chair to 
select such a person.
DM:  Good idea.  Put up a template or maximal list that a WG should consider.

LH:  explains his email [?], how does this person/job relate to the stuff 
outlined in the QAH?  Should QAH be changed so this becomes a technique of 
something in QAH?

KD:  something more practical.  He'll try to harmonize his idea with LR [?] 
and LH emails.

DM:  is there a definition of "Spec Editor" anywhere?
KD:  not sure such exists.

AI to Karl:  find list of documents in W3C which refer to different roles 
in QA.  Chair, team contact, spec editor, test manager.  Due 1 week.

>6.) Adjourn
>         Overflow (12-12:30): available.

Meeting adjourned at 11:45 EST.

>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Nov/0009

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 00:50:38 UTC