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

Re: f2f draft agenda posted

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:06:04 -0800
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <403EA60C.7080706@sun.com>

I agree that the "big issues" of direction and overall structure should 
take precedence (after all, until they're resolved we won't even know 
which way we want to go with TestGL). Nevertheless, let's please try to 
take advantage of being together f2f to spend some (more) time on TestGL.


Lofton Henderson wrote:

> 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.
> -Lofton.
>>  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 TestGL?
>>>> Thanks...
>>>> Lofton Henderson wrote:
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 21:06:07 UTC

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