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

Draft minutes of 20040927 telecon

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:25:42 -0700
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <415AFE26.3080604@sun.com>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 17 March 2003

Scribe: Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
Chair: Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)


(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Summary of New Action Items:

AI              Who   What                                                                      Due date

AI-20040927-1   KD    Contact WGs who are working on specs to ask them to use/adopt SpecGL	By last call publication   											    200410xx
AI-20040927-2	DM    Draft text on core modules						2003-10-04	
AI-20040927-3	LH    Mail proposal for issue #7 to mailing list				2003-10-04	
AI-20040927-4	KD    Mail discussion of how to reconcile issue #8				2003-10-04	
AI-20040927-5	KD    Draft proposal for issue #3						2003-10-11	
AI-20040927-6	KD    Draft example for issue #2						2003-10-11

Agenda:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Sep/0030.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Sep/0024.html


1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) routine business
    - Hotel Information for Reading, with direction and booking places.
    It seems there are hotels cheaper.
    How do we organize our evenings together for this last F2F. :(
    - Any left-overs from the previous teleconf?

KD: There are other cheaper hotels. Do we want to stay together? Get together in the evenings?
Consensus: yes.
KD will circulate a list of hotels. We will ask Andrew to comment.

3.) TAG/QA Coordination teleconf.
    Lead: Karl/Dom
    The TAG has proposed the date of the 27th to discuss. We have answered positively on the list of the TAG, 
    any persons of the QA WG is welcome to participate. Though it seems that one person wants to reschedule 
    on the tag mailing list.

LH, KD, and PC plan to attend. 

4.) QA WG issues list [1]
    Lead: Karl
    - Karl has started the issues list. A couple of questions:
    - Should we keep the old one (right now) We are breaking anchors in mails and create a new URI?
    - What does this issues list means once the WG is closed?
    - How do we deal with the issues before the F2F?
    - Do we make extra teleconferences for them?

KD: the Issues list is currently located where the old issues list was. Should we move it? If so, 
internal links will break, plus others pointing to it (eg, from minutes)
may break. Will put a pointer to the both lists from that address.
KD will "do the right thing"...

LD:  After the WG closes should we still process the list?
DHm: Discuss this at F2F? (Maintenance of docs after WG closes can be discussed then.)
LH:  We won't get a decent Last Call by the F2F. Must we close exactly at end of October?
     Can't we finish up our work? We should decide at F2F about an orderly shutdown.
KD:  This should be acceptable to management.
KD:  Should we have an extra telecon before F2F to discuss issues? 
DH:  Good idea.
KD:  meet weekly to discuss?
Consensus: yes - starting next week.

5.) Review of QA Framework
    Lead: Lynne/Dom
    Do people have been contacted for targeted reviews.

DH: hasn't yet made contact. He will do this week

6.) QA Framework after F2F
    Lead: Karl Dubost
    Karl thinks that it will be ask when entering CR to have
    pre-implementation phase, should we target specifications
    before the F2F or at the F2F so we will be able to prove that
    implementations have been made.

KD: is concerned that we will end up in the same situation as with previous versions. 
    We will be asked to prove that we have groups actually using SpecGL. We need to 
    find people who are using/encourage to use. Do we agree?
    How to identify people? Persuade them?
KD: takes AI to contact WGs who are currently developing their specs to recruit them.
       We will ask them to engage after Last Call, but contact them now.
    Deadline: last call publication

Other business:

Working through the issues list

Notion of modules: DM has discussed concept of "core". This doesn't have to be considered
a module. Modules are "safety valves" among DOVs. They don't have a predefined relationship.
LH: nothing special about "core" other than that it will be *required* for conformance.
    we removed a checkpoint/requirement specifying that any required modules must be identified.
KD: should we insert a Good Practice to this effect.
KD: we need to draft an explanation of these issues.
DM: this must be mentioned in the Variability document; maybe also in SpecGL

DM: takes AI to draft some text (due in one week)
KD: will add link in SpecGL to this section

Issue #7: Lofton to continue discussion of this issue...
AI: LH to mail something to mailing list this week

Issue #8: DM's proposed text may be too detailed?

PC: drop #7 (how I ran the tests)
KD: will take an AI to write email discussing both lists; how to reconcile - Due by next Monday

Issue #3: KD will write proposal on this within two weeks
DH: reiterates that this is very important

Issue #2: KD will draft an example (DUE: 2 weeks)

7.) Adjourn

8.) Overflow (12-12:30): available.

 Zakim bridge: +1-617-761-6200
 11:00am-12noon EST.
 code: 7294 ("QAWG")
 IRC, see: http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2001/12/07-QA-logistics#telcon

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 18:25:25 UTC

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