RE: [FINAL] 04-April-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes

I didn't interpret the minuted discussion as a request to reopen the issue 
or change its resolution.  There is latitude in the resolution to allow 
deviation from the document license, for good cause (tho' the latter is a 
bit wooly in the current wording).

I'm not planning to reopen the issue, but will do so if someone explicitly 
requests it (to reopen, there should be some new information or new arguments).

-Lofton.

At 06:56 PM 4/16/02 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
> > CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test suite license and it was quite
> > restrictive. He is working on rewording it and when done feels we might
> > be able to use it.
>
>WRT to the license under which the tests are being published, I thought we 
>agreed with the current wording of the Operational Guidelines:
>
>=================
>...If test materials are produced within the W3C, the Working Group is 
>recommended to use the W3C Document License. There are several reasons why 
>the Document License is preferred:
>         -       It prohibits the test materials from being modified by 
> the user upon download. Therefore it guarantees that the test materials 
> can not be misused during conformance evaluation of a product.
>         -       It requires that if the test materials are copied or 
> redistributed, they must contain the link to the original test materials 
> and their status
>If the Document License is not applicable and a user needs to modify the 
>test materials in order to use them, the W3C Software License can be used. 
>For publishing test materials acquired from an external group, other 
>licenses may be applicable (see transferring test suite).
>=================
>
>If we are not in agreement yet - let's keep both issues open and solve 
>them on the next f2f.  May be there is a value in providing a "Test 
>License". I'm trying to assess benefits/costs of going this way from the 
>vendors perspective.
>Thanks
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dimitris Dimitriadis [mailto:dimitris@ontologicon.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:21 PM
>To: Jack Morrison
>Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org; Philippe Hegaret
>Subject: Re: [FINAL] 04-April-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes
>
>
>one comment inlined
>
>On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:00 , Jack Morrison wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > 49 - Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and
> > distribution of test materials? CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test
> > suite license and it was quite restrictive. He is working on rewording
> > it and when done feels we might be able to use it. Lofton to split
> > this issue into two: 59 - licenses under which external contributions
> > are accepted by WG; 49 - licenses under which WG provides its test
> > materials to the public; Dimitris to provide proposed wording on how
> > external tests are to be accepted by the WG.
> >
>[dd] This issue is being looked into by the DOM WG chair as well, let me
>coordinate and get back to this list.
>
> > Next Telcon:
> >
> > LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 4/08. It was
> > felt that in order to have documents ready prior to the AC meeting
> > that another a couple of special calls might be needed. The meeting
> > was scheduled for Thursday, 4/11/02 at 2:00EST. The agenda will be to
> > review the Specification Guidelines, using the same baisc format used
> > for the Operational Guidelines checkpoints.
> >
> > Next Meeting
> > Thursday, April 11, 2002
> > 2PM EST
> >
> > Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > FINAL MINUTES
> > QA Working Group Teleconference
> >
> > Friday, 4-April-2002
> >
> > Scribe: Jack Morrison
> >
> > Attendees:
> >
> > (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
> >
> > (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
> >
> > (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
> >
> > (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
> >
> > (JM) Jack Morrison (Sun)
> >
> > (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
> >
> > (OT) Olivier Thereaux (W3C - systems)
> >
> > Dave Marston
> >
> > Regrets:
> >
> > (MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
> >
> > (DD) Daniel Dardailler (W3C - IG co-chair)
> >
> > (DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)
> >
> > Absent:
> >
> > (PF) Peter Fawcett (Real Networks)
> >
> > (KH) Katie Haritos-Shea (DOC)
> >
> > (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
> >
> > Summary of New Action Items:
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-1 - KD - update next week on F2F status
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-2 - LH - reserve bridge for next meeting
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-3 - OT - Resolve issue of central bibliography in QA
> > Framework: Introduction
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-4 - LH - split Issue 49 into two separate issues.
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-5 - KG - clarification of conformance section in OG
> >
> > A-2002-04-04-6 - dd - provide proposed wording on how external tests
> > are to be accepted by the WG
> >
> > Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-
> > wg/2002Apr/0012.html
> >
> > Minutes:
> >
> > Housekeeping Items:
> >
> > 1.    Discussed that those editing the website using Amaya need to be
> > careful about document types as under some circumstances the editor
> > will change the type from Strict to Transitional. Also, the AI list is
> > out of date and needs to be updated (see below).
> > 2.    Discussed adjusting the meeting time to allow Asia and Europe to
> > participate at more reasonable times. Postponed any decision until
> > next
> > week as most members from Europe were unable to attend today.
> > 3.    Karl is working on organizing the next F2F, should have more
> > information next week,
> >
> > QA Framework Document Schedule:
> >
> > 1.    The editors felt they would be able to post the latest drafts this
> > weekend, WG only, including the two new documents.
> > 2.    The original goal was to have the first Technical Report for ALL
> > the documents done by early April, but postponed it by a month. There
> > was some discussion about whether or not we could be ready before the
> > next AC meeting, and we were reminded that we need to meet the pre-AC
> > publication deadline, which as a week or so earlier than the meeting.
> > DD felt the Specification Guidelines (3A) might not be ready, but that
> > the Operational Guidelines (2A) would. It was asked that the editors
> > think about whether Operational Examples and Techniques (2B) could be
> > moved up so the first draft was before the AC deadline.
> >
> > Issues:
> >
> > The rest of the meeting dealt with a review of the Issues List.
> >
> > 42 - Where should the Taxonomy document be kept?
> >
> > CLOSED - After some discussion it was agreed that for now this could
> > stay as a separate document.
> >
> > 20 - Should the QA WG web page have a central bibliography index to
> > notes and other documents?
> >
> > CLOSED - Olivier to resolve.
> >
> > 24 - Appeal process when QA WG rejects a request from WG
> >
> > POSTPONED - Was discussed if this needed to be in the QA process
> > documentation. Postponed until Issue 53 is resolved.
> >
> > 33 - Guideline for minimum level of WG commitment to QA
> >
> > CLOSED - the table has been revised but level 3 is still the minimum
> >
> > 37 - Coordination of QA work with external entities
> >
> > CLOSED - See Chapter 3 of OG
> >
> > 38 - Resolutions of external QA requests
> >
> > CLOSED - See Chapter 3 of OG
> >
> > 28 - Test maintenance task force
> >
> > CLOSED - See Guideline 8
> >
> > 29 - Should there be a checkpoint about publication of testing
> > results?
> >
> > CLOASED - See Guideline 6.7
> >
> > 40 - Test Materials home
> >
> > CLOSED - The overlap between documents has been resolved.
> >
> > 17 - Where should conformance test materials reside after a WG
> > disbands?
> >
> > CLOSED -
> >
> > 19 - Should each Framework document have a "Glossary" appendix?
> >
> > CLOSED - The Introduction explains some terms and points to a QA
> > Glossary. Agreed we would take out the reference, as long as everyone
> > dealt with defining terms when they first used them. Currently this is
> > not in the Specification Guidelines.
> >
> > 57 - Use of RFC2119 in Operational Guidelines
> >
> > CLOSED - This was discussed at length, and a number of examples were
> > reviewed. The conclusion was that "Should = Must, unless you have a
> > very good reason why not". Agreed on recommendation "b) Keep using the
> > keywords and specify in the conformance clause that for each subset of
> > checkpoints having the same priority, keywords "MUST", "SHOULD", etc.
> > in the checkpoint text and in the description text must be honored as
> > prescribed in [RFC2119]." Kirill to add clarification to conformance
> > section for next public draft.
> >
> > 39 - Use of Keywords SHOULD, SHALL, etc
> >
> > OPEN - Agreed that for the next public draft (after the WG drafts), we
> > must review the guidelines and checkpoints for normative usage.
> >
> > 49 - Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for use and
> > distribution of test materials?
> >
> > CLOSED - Olivier reviewed the DOM test suite license and it was quite
> > restrictive. He is working on rewording it and when done feels we
> > might be able to use it. Lofton to split this issue into two:
> >
> > 59 - licenses under which external contributions are accepted by WG;
> >
> > 49 - licenses under which WG provides its test materials to the
> > public;
> >
> > Dimitris to provide proposed wording on how external tests are to be
> > accepted by the WG.
> >
> > Next Telcon:
> >
> > LH discussed the need for an extra meeting the week of 4/08. It was
> > felt that in order to have documents ready prior to the AC meeting
> > that another a couple of special calls might be needed. The meeting
> > was scheduled for Thursday, 4/11/02 at 2:00EST. The agenda will be to
> > review the Specification Guidelines, using the same baisc format used
> > for the Operational Guidelines checkpoints.
> >
> > Next Meeting
> >
> > Thursday, April 11, 2002
> >
> > 2PM EST
> >
> > Meeting adjourned at 3:30PM EST.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 20:10:10 UTC