Fwd: Monday A.M. Minutes of Dublin F2F

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>X-Sender: skall@mailserver.nist.gov
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
>Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:54:55 -0400
>To: lrosenthal@nist.gov
>From: Mark Skall <mskall@nist.gov>
>Subject: Fwd: Monday A.M. Minutes of Dublin F2F
>X-MailScanner:
>X-MailScanner-From: mskall@nist.gov
>X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 0; #1: 1
>X-NAS-Classification: 0
>X-NAS-MessageID: 8310
>X-NAS-Validation: {6E317F2B-4B4D-49A9-AF5A-E9593A9D7BDB}
>
>
>>Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:32:21 -0400
>>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>>From: Mark Skall <mskall@nist.gov>
>>Subject: Monday A.M. Minutes of Dublin F2F
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>QA Working Group F2F Meeting
>>
>>Monday, August 08, 2005 - A.M.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Scribe: Mark Skall
>>
>>
>>
>>Attendees:
>>
>>(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
>>
>>(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
>>
>>(DH) Dominique Haza Massieux (W3C)
>>
>>(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
>>
>>(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
>>
>>(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
>>
>>(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
>>
>>
>>
>>Regrets:
>>
>>
>>
>>(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
>>
>>(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
>>
>>
>>
>>Absent: None
>>
>>
>>
>>Summary of New Action Items:
>>
>>
>>
>>AI-20050808-1 MS and LR will work on improving language and improving
>>usability of the QA Primer by August 31, 2005.
>>
>>AI-20050808-2 LH to complete editorial pass of the QA Handbook by Aug.
>>31.
>>
>>AI-20050808-3 LH to provide an estimate of what it would take to fix the
>>template by Aug. 31.
>>
>>AI-20050808-4 DH to reorganize Variability in Specifications document
>>(Umbrella Spec in appendix, etc.) by Aug. 22 DH (and graphics improvement
>>for KD  (Aug. 17)
>>
>>AI-20050808-5 KD to improve graphics in Variability in Specifications
>>document by Aug. 17.
>>AI-20050808-6 KD to republish Variability in Specifications in TR space, 
>>as a W3C WG Note by Aug. 31.
>>AI-20050808-7 PC To review Test FAQ with suggestions for enhancements and 
>>improvement by Aug. 31.
>>AI-20050808-8 LR to give Test FAQ to NIST people and receive comments by 
>>Aug. 24.
>>AI-20050808-9 KD, in relation to removing the word “valid” from 
>>conformance claim, will check the TOC, ICS and check for “valid 
>>conformance claim” in prose and any other things that depend on this by 
>>Aug. 12.
>>AI-20050808-10 KD will add Examples and improve the layout of the 
>>conformance clause template by Aug. 10.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  W3C QA Framework
>>
>>Review of all documents we have published.
>>
>>KD: Goal was 7 documents at Brussels.  We have published 5.  SpecGL as a 
>>Rec will be published soon.  Remaining issues will be resolved 
>>today.  Any comments about the packaging, etc. of the documents?
>>
>>QA Primer
>>
>>PC: Is Primer up to date?
>>DH: It was updated on June 23.
>>KD: Could improve Primer by making it more W3C document-like.  Should we 
>>publish it as a WG note?
>>DH:  Then can only update it as a WG, which will close.
>>KD: Primer needs work in improving language and improving usability of 
>>document.
>>MS and LR to work on improving language and usability of QA Primer.
>>
>>Future Work in the Interest Group
>>
>>DH: Charter for interest group will expire soon.
>>PC: We need to understand what we can do as an IG.
>>MS: Can an IG meet F2F?
>>DH: Yes, but W3C team time commitment will be less.
>>
>>WG went around the table to discuss future time commitment to the IG
>>
>>PC: Same commitment as before.
>>LR: Same commitment as before.
>>MS: Same commitment as before.
>>RK: Hard to get time commitment
>>DH: Less commitment from the team
>>KD: Less commitment from the team.  Karl will use some of his time to 
>>manage it. To continue IG, we need to show future value.
>>LH: Not sure.  One or 2 hours a week commitment. Go to meeting if funded.
>>LR: Maybe work should continue on QADev Group.
>>KD: That’s for developers of tools.
>>LR: None of us have volunteered to do administrative work.  Is that 
>>Karl?  Will he have time to do minimal level to keep Group going?
>>KD:  Easier if we have milestones.
>>MS: Will we develop a plan for specific milestones for the IG?
>>KD: Yes.  Might be what people can commit here or we can manage small 
>>groups who do the work.
>>PC:  People in the room?
>>KD: No.
>>DH: Someone needs to be responsible for each project.  We can then 
>>recruit other people on the IG list.
>>MS: Will probably just be this group so we shouldn’t assume more resources.
>>LR: Do we want IG to continue work?
>>All: Yes.
>>DH: An IG can meet at the Technical Plenary.
>>KD: Who is likely available to go to Tech Plenary?
>>All can go except possibly RK and LH.
>>
>>QA Handbook
>>
>>KD: Is QA Handbook aligned with SpecGL and is there more wok needed?
>>LH: We can use more examples but may not be worth the effort because 
>>there’s not a high demand.  An editorial pass is worth the effort and 
>>further work on the templates.  LH will do an editorial pass by Aug. 31.
>>KD: Can you give an estimate of what it would take to fix the template?
>>
>>Break
>>
>>KD: Variability in Specification – fixed a few things in last publication 
>>but Table of Contents needs to be reorganized.  Umbrella Spec in 
>>appendix, reorganization ,and graphics improvements need to be done.
>>
>>KD will Republish in TR space, as a W3C WG Note.
>>
>>Test FAQ
>>
>>PC: Do people think it needs work?  Could look at this and expand some 
>>sections.
>>LR: PC should identify where work needs to be done.
>>PC: Will review document with suggestions for enhancements and 
>>improvement by Aug. 31.
>>LR: Give Test FAQ to NIST people and receive comments by Aug. 24.
>>KD: After QA WG how do we promote documents we have completed?
>>KD: Wiki need editing?
>>LR: Wiki very useful in many communities
>>
>>QA Specification Guidelines
>>
>>LR: What’s left to do?
>>KD: Susan Lesch reviewed grammar of SpecGL and found inconsistencies.  KD 
>>updated based on suggestions and added links.
>>KD: Issue of how to make a valid conformance claim.  We will remove word 
>>“valid” from good practice but must justify it.  This will clarify the 
>>meaning to help understanding.
>>Things to do related to removal of word: TOC, ICS and check for “valid 
>>conformance claim” in prose and any other things that depend on this.
>>RK: Other groups use “valid conformance claim”.
>>KD: Bjoern Hoermann does not agree with Good Practice 19, and asked us to 
>>eliminate it and merge it with God practice 18.  Can’t do on procedural 
>>grounds – too late.
>>KD: We can clarify and amplify the example.
>>
>>Conformance clause templates
>>
>>KD: Examples need to be added and the layout needs to be improved.
>>DH: Has template been sent to mailing list?
>>LH: No.
>>KD: There will be a press release for SpecGL publication.
>>
>>12:30pm
>>  Lunch break
>>