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

Final minutes of QA Teleconf 18 October 2004

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:20:11 +0200
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1098688810.4618.302.camel@stratustier>
QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 18 Oct 2004
Scribe: (DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)

Summary of New Action Items: 
AI-20041018-1: Karl to find an example of ICS for SpecGL by 2004-10-25
AI-20041018-2: Karl to review the usage of "developer" in SpecGL by
AI-20041018-3: Karl to adapt the wording wrt normative vs informative
sections in "about the document", in SpecGL by 2004-10-25

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Oct/0059.html
Previous Telcon Minutes:

1) Introducing Richard Kennedy

	Boeing just nominated Richard Kennedy as a participant to the QA
Working Group; after everybody on the call introduced themselves to
Richard, Richard explained that his interests came from his QA role for
Boeing's web site, where he tries to get W3C standards (as well as
internal ones) on millions of pages.

2) Routine business
        The Holiday Inn Express is full; it's high time to make
reservations if you haven't yet.

3) Responding to TAG

        No progresses were made on this topic, due to lack of time (as
discussed last week).

4) SpecGL Editorial issues
        The Working Group agreed on the new numbering proposed by Karl
and Lynne; Lynne will ask to Mark to review GP 2.1C (using examples and
use cases to illustrate), and Karl will look for an example of GP 1.2C
(using an ICS as part of a conformance claim).

Karl: incorporated the renumbering suggested by Lynne
... started to references the conformance requirements from the CR
version as requested by Lofton, but that's a lot of work
... hoping to get that done for the F2F
lofton: I find odd that that the subsections, PRs, and GPs within
"Guidelines" chapter are numbered, but "Guidelines" itself is not
numbered, nor are the peer-level chapters to "Guidelines", nor are any
of their subsections
karl: regarding the feeling that we're drifting from the intended
meaning that lofton had,
... I'm trying to keep the changes history inside the doc
... (yellow: new, gray: old)
lofton: looks terrific, thanks
karl: I've integrated Lynne's suggested modifications
... I didn't open new issues about them, but with the revisions inside
the document itself, I think this should be OK
Lynne: indeed, my comments were mostly editorials
Karl: could someone review the 2.1 GP C (provide examples, uses cases
and graphics)?
Lynne: I'll get Mark to read it
Karl: about GP 1.2C, we need an example of ICS as part of conformance
... ok, will do it

5.) SpecGL: developer/implementor

        The Working Group decided to use "implementor" as the prefered
term; Karl will review the use of "developer" in the current document,
and changes it as appropriate.

karl: next question regards "developers vs implementors"
... in IT, there is tendency to come up with new words
... implementor is not in my dictionary 
dom: there is a difference between developers and implementors
pc: in this context I refer to implementors usually
karl: e.g. in SpecGL, we have "require implementors to fill the ICS"
dom: sounds like a typical example where I would keep implementor
karl: ok, so we'll keep implementor
ACTION karl: review the usage of developers
... in SpecGL (and replace it with implementors if fits)

6) Other

        The Working Group confirmed the current way of distinguishing
normative from informative sections in SpecGL; Lofton made a quick
status report on the Handbook (no substantive issues, Lynne's comments
to be processed this week).

karl: issue#6
... should we label each section as normative/informative
... or do it centrally in our conformance clause?
pc: the current way looks good to me
... spreading it would make it more repetitive than needed
karl: maybe we should add it somewhere in the introduction?
... I'm afraid that people won't go to the conformance clause
pc: we could add something about that right in front of the doc
karl: I'll review "about this document" to make sure it's there
ACTION karl: add normative vs information in "about this document" in
karl: please send as many comments as possible before Friday
... so that I can refine the agenda during the week-end
... also, if you have any specific agenda item you would like to
discuss, get in touch with me by email
lofton: re QA Handbook, there is no substantive issues
... only needs examples
... break out sessions during the F2F are likely to be helpful
lynne: have you had time to process my comments?
lofton: not yet, I'll do this week
... and will respond
karl: I find the current documents a lot easier to read than they used
to be
... they should be easier to sell! Congrats to all the participants

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 07:20:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:37 UTC