This document tries to summarize the bulk of the discussions during this two-days meeting. The full minutes, following a specific structure, are also linked for reference.
Below is the list of participants to the meeting, along with their initials (used at some points in the minutes.
The meeting started as usual with reports and discussions about the IG. The second half of the afternoon focused on the QA Framework.
Dom gave an overview and demo of the QA Wiki, explaining the different syntax conventions, the social nature of it, its good and bad points, etc. The WG will try to make good use of this tool.
olivier reported about in and out-reach topics. A lot of attention given to the "WASP asks W3C" project, and there is a plan to revive the public-evangelist list.
The IG work has been focused a lot on liaisons and development, with in/out reach left without care for a while.
David Marston organizes a panel on the interest of Web Standards at the WWW2004 conference.
There was an idea to organize an IG workshop in New York, too. The Workshop will not happen in May 2004 but the idea and the (virtual) organization may be re-used in the future.
The WG discussed about the CR report on the implementation status of the QA Framework. The discussion then drifted on why the QAF has not been accepted and so how could we improve things.
The basic conclusion was that the ideas and concepts were good, but that the framework was in need of a radical change in packaging. More help, more tools, less authoritative.
It is mpossible to implement QAF as is. All agreed that we need to improve the organization and readability of the documents - documents need to be restructured, address information at a higher level and include examples.
The WG should try and make people want to use this framework, not impose process for process-sake; need to provide useful tools in order to help people achieve the goal. People don’t even have to know that it is QA, however at some point, it is important that people be educated as to the QA principles that they have implemented.
OpsGL will be repackaged as a handbook. Work is to continue on SpecGL and TestGL, but at a higher, simpler level. Work on a specific issue, complete it and then more to the next one.
We will make more progress if we work on smaller modules, working as a group and moving on when a piece is completed.
Focus on high level principles and progress them, including tools and templates. Target for deliverable in 6-8 months, then target next more detailed edition. Pick a small number of areas/topics to work on. Start with one, write the prose, examples, tools, templates, etc., and when done, start on next topic.
We will need to go through checkpoints and sort through them, rating them as to which are high level, duplicative, etc.
Each editor is to lead discussion and go through each document, identifying major principles.
A short report on Dimitris' work on current practices which can build on the results of the questionnaire about test practices, followed by Mary's presentation on test suite management, test automation, etc.
Continued from the day before...
Ops going out of "standard track", not in scope for this discussion, the group discussed what to do with Spec (and Test) Guidelines. The discussion focused on what were the important concepts to keep . The editors will then come up with a new draft with only these major concepts.
The group went through the current Test Guidelines draft, trying to decide which guidelines and checkpoints should be kept or cut out for a shorter, simpler version of the document.
to close the meeting, the group summarized which would be the next (publication) steps for this reformulated QA Framework, starting with first (group) drafts by March 16th, discussions, and possibly first (public, published) Working Drafts by April 22nd.