W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: f2f draft agenda posted

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:38:24 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 04:45 PM 2/26/04 -0500, Mark Skall wrote:

>I also strongly agree that we need more time for TestGL.

IMO, our first priority is to reach consensus on the QAF Future and the big 
issues (those that potentially redefine QAF and/or QAWG).  If we do that in 
less time than allocated (most of 2 half days), then I have no problem 
spending more time on TestGL and its issues.

On the other hand, I am against taking time from QAF Future, if we are not 
done with the topic.  (This is my own personal view of best use of 2 days 
of f2f time at W3C Plenary).  We have shown in the past that we can do 
specific, technical issue resolution adequately in telecons.

>It seems like we've spent an inordinate amount of time on SpecGL (even 
>before we received all the comments)

There is no time for SpecGL issues resolution on the f2f agenda.  (And I 
wasn't anticipating that time would be spent on detailed SpecGL 
issues.)  Recent time on SpecGL was about the TA stuff, which has been in 
the queue since before CR publication (because SpecGL fails to comply with 
itself, for which we have gotten roasted by others).

Unless I'm forgetting something, we haven't spent any time recently 
processing SpecGL comments or issues, have we?

>and very little time on TestGL. For SpecGL, we devised a strategy, as a 
>group, and even revised the strategy.  No corresponding discussion was 
>ever held for TestGL. Unless we have some quality f2f discussion, we'll 
>never advance TestGL.

We spent a fair amount of time on TestGL at Boulder f2f -- as I recall, we 
went through everything and all open issues.  One problem (IMO) has been 
that we have until now been unable to marshal the resources to keep TestGL 
moving forward.

The principal goal of this meeting (IMO) must be to devise a coherent and 
credibly achievable strategy for the whole QAF family.  Because we don't 
have one now.  This means a strategy all parts, individually and 
collectively:  Intro, OpsGL/ET, SpecGL/ET, and indeed TestGL/ET.


>  At 11:11 PM 2/26/2004 +0200, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>>I second that, in addition want to stress the importance of bringing 
>>issues in sync with Spec and Ops (there's lots on terminology and sorting 
>>out issues that are inherently process and should therefore be in Ops, 
>>and issues that belong to a grey zone between the two). In addition, we 
>>want to have a clear picture of our issues since many of them have been 
>>posed by more than one person from different perspectives.
>>Looking at the agenda draft (paste below), what about allowing for an 
>>extra hour and a half during the afternoon (from QAF CR major 
>>issues/wrapup etc)? Wrapup and future meetings is typically quite fast. 
>>In that case, that extra time would need to be minuted by someone else 
>>except for me since I'll take active part in the discussion.
>>Tuesday AM -- 0830 - 1200 -- QAWG topics
>>      Scribe: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux
>>      Morning break: 1015
>>       test questionnaire, results
>>         Mary Brady presentation,
>>         test deliverables review/status,
>>         overview of TestGL issues list (**),
>>           issue status update
>>         TestGL/ET status and outlook.
>>Lunch break: 1200 - 1300
>>Tuesday PM -- 1300 - 1700
>>      Scribe: Dimitris Dimitriadis
>>      Afternoon break: 1530
>>         QAF CR major issues (continued from Monday),
>>         wrapup, future meetings, etc.
>>On Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, at 22:55 Europe/Athens, Patrick Curran wrote:
>>>I'm disappointed at the small amount of time allocated for TestGL. We're 
>>>behind with this effort, but we do now have a public issues list. As 
>>>we've seen, it's difficult to get responses to issues by email - 
>>>scheduling time for group discussion seems to be the most effective way 
>>>to make progress. We don't get together very often, and I really would 
>>>like to push forward on this.
>>>Is there any chance of shuffling things so we could spend more time on 
>>>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>QAWG --
>>>>The draft f2f agenda is at:
>>>>Suggestions, questions, discussion are welcome.
>>>>It's linked from:
>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
>Email: skall@nist.gov
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 17:35:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:35 UTC