This document tries to summarize the bulk of the discussions during this two-days meeting. The full minutes 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.
Should the QAWG continue as a WG?
QAWG members looked at pros and cons of keeping the QAWG together vs. discontinuing the group and working solely as an IG. The consensus is that the work would have much less clout if the WG went away. The group decided to continue the WG, at least through October, and get documents to last call. We will reduce the telcons from once a week to once every two weeks.
What is the best way to proceed on all the QAF documents?
All three documents being processed by the QA WG were discussed. It was decided to continue the work on QA Handbook and SpecGL and to discontinue the formal work on TestGL until the other documents are complete. However, the QAWG will informally continue work on TestGL through the Wiki.
Validator going very well. Had a meeting with company doing QA in process for web services. Trying to convince people to insert QA. Very interested in outreach and would like to join W3C. Month in QA being continued by Lynne.
The QA WG confirmed his resolution of having a central glossary and a glossary per-guidelines document, and set up a plan to make this happen in practice. The QA Glossary has the official definitions ; the GL will use that defintion (copied), and can add addition context-specific elaboration of the definition (basically, a refinement of the resolution of issue 19). Lynne will ensure at publicaton time that there is consistency between the local and the central glossary
The WG resolved most of the open issues on QAH; the following issues are still pending though: licensing terms for test materials (waiting for input from the W3C Advisory Board), fuzzy usage of the word "quality" in QAHQAH Issues list
Reviewing our usage of IPR in QAH, we clarified IPR by more specific terms (details of implementation below)
We'll try to turn it in a positive way ; if we don't find something, we'll just remove it
agreed with proposed resolution
legal issue wrt documentation license is pending, waiting for input from the Advisory Board
agreed in principle; since TestGL is not ready yet, we'll create a Wiki topic on the relevant points and link it from the handbook until testgl is ready
agreed; and as a general rule, we'll try to eliminate as much use of abbreviations as possible and reasonnable
agreed -> "in order to effectively fulfill QA IG reviews"
We'll move the primer from the qa handbook to /QA/ web page (QA Framework roadmap)
sub issue 1): dropped
sub issue 2)-> AI-20040615-14 DHM to fix QAH with regard to usage of "staff"
sub issue 3): agreed with proposed resolution
pending, waiting for AB policy proposal
Agreed to add words to scope saying that there is an emphasis on testability ; not renaming QA Framework ; changing "QA Projects" to "test and other QA-related activities"
LH to look at the "quality *" in details by 2004-07-16
Recapped yesterday's discussions on resource constraints: TestGL will be put on back burner until QAH and SpecGL are stabilized (2 more document cycles). Insufficient resources otherwise, both editing and review/processing. We will take the main sections/ideas and making Wiki pages that anyone can contribute to. Dom will do this. When we pick it up again we - the WG - will decide what we take from the Wiki and incorporate into the document. Remainder of morning's discussion looked at details of various drafts (Test GL Drafts 1, 2 and 3) discussing both the desirability of having a wiki topic, as well as technical details of the individual principles and requirements
Requests that conformance-related terms be defined, and that specifications define labels (names) for implementations that conform in a particular manner.
A few comments which were mostly editorials and to refine the way we are expressing our data: RFC keywords, Meaningful text in Good Practices, and avoid to use abbreviations in text, they don't help the reader to have a clear understanding of the specification.
We have agreed on most of the comments made by Jeremy Carrol. Sometimes unclear writings make it difficult to understand the references. Should we use two levels of examples: simple and complex? Some of our choices have to been explained a bit more to Jermey Caroll. We will rewrite the Good Practices as meaningul short sentences.
We'll use the story that Jeremy Caroll has to share.
We agreed that Karl's proposal is a good one and we have allocated work: Lynn, Karl, Dom will write - others will review
TODO: need a definition of "Quality Control"
We have not found a resolution on this topic. We'll have to discuss further what are the things which are normative between Requirements and Good Practices. Is it a question of language or just a Conformance requirement defining the normativity.
Thunderous applause and thanks to Patrick and Sun Microsystems for hosting the meeting, with excellent facilities and hotel and for ensuring we never went hungry or thirsty by providing refreshments and lunch arrangements.
Karl is presenting the graphics he has created to visualize the type of Information that covers a Test Case. It's an attempt to clarify the vocabulary and the model used by the test GL. It will help to have a better definition of the terms used for this. The raw minutes will give you more details about each detailed and explained ambiguities.
In Issues list for the documents, should we capture the results of the response to the issues responses? We need to record somewhere, in one place, all the decisions we have made and whether the resolution has been accepted. Propose a central index document with the links to the email to the commenter and their response. Lofton to initiate for QAH and Lynne to continue for SpecGL.