W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Draft Minutes of 14-April-2003 Teleconference

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:59:21 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030418075254.03c00a10@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com, www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 09:41 PM 4/17/03 -0400, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Minutes say:
> >DM (with Dom and Lofton) will re-write the conformance requirement and
> >checkpoint for 8.4 (Action Item)  Date:4/25/03.
>
>Lofton says:
> >I recall advocating/discussing that we would try to achieve a simple
> >clarification that everyone is happy with, and failing that would
> >remove the checkpoint.  I.e.:  Draft clarification; review; accept or
> >delete.
> >Is this something that we agreed as part of the Resolution?
>
>I'm opposed to removing the checkpoint. As far as I'm concerned, we'll
>rewrite it. It's badly needed!

My point is not about its merit or lack of merit.   Rather, we are at the 
point where we are going to start having to throw stuff overboard, if we 
can't make it settle down to majority satisfaction.

We have been kicking this one around for about 9 months now, and it has 
defied our attempts to make it settle down.  So I'm proposing one last try 
to get a simple, clear statement, ConfReqs, and rationale that everyone is 
happy with.  Else ... toss it (till "SpecGL 2.0").

I agree that it is a useful CP (P2, btw), as I understand its scope and 
meaning.

-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 09:57:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT