RE: QF Policy & Op guidelines

At 11:04 PM 1/28/02 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>Hi, Andrew!
>Thanks for raising this, we discussed these 3 points on today's telecon,
>outcome is inline (WG members, please check if I correctly summarized
>this):

I have compared this against the minutes [1].  See comments in-line below:

>
> >   1.
> >   Test material development. Do we have a global license for use and
> >   distribution of test materials. Or is it per-group?
>[KG] We currently address this in the checkpoint 6.3 and 7.3:
>
>Checkpoint 6.3.Priority 2.In QA Process document, define the licenses
>applicable to submitted and published test materials.
>Note: Working Group can choose either the W3C Document or the W3C
>Software license. If applicable, W3C Document license is recommended
>
>Checkpoint 7.3.Priority 1.If plan to transfer the test materials to W3C,
>resolve IPR questions and reach agreement with external party that
>produced test materials.
>
>We agreed to link 7.3 from the note for 6.3, as there might be other
>licenses that the WG has to sort out with external party in case if the
>test materials were developed outside of the W3C.

Minutes show that we agreed to split 6.3 into two checkpoints:

-- something like "ensure test materials [Ed context note -- this applies 
to TM distributed or endorsed by W3C) are open and freely available under 
whatever license is used"

-- type of license.

I have opened a new issue, #49, to make sure we close this properly and 
with WG consensus.



> >   2.
> >   Guideline 3. "...developed test materials can be used by external
> >   parties including certification services." We Need to explore the
> >   liability issues here.
>
>[KG] We ask WG to put the following disclaimer in Checkpoint 3.3:
>Checkpoint 3.3.Priority 2.Provide disclaimer regarding use of the test
>materials for compliance verification.
>....
>1. passing all of the tests does not guarantee full compliance of
>implementation to specification
>2. failing test suite means failing tests for specific feature they
>target
>
>In fact this disclaimer raised many discussions, specifically the part
>2. We decided to leave it as is for FPWD, in the mean time comments are
>welcome on the list.
>Argumentation for the current 2.:
>   - Existence: Disclaimer needs to be complete - if we give definition
>of what does success mean, we need to give definition of what the
>failure mean
>   - Wording: Objections were raised by Lynne and Dimitris that failing
>test means non-conformance. But everybody agreed that the term
>"non-conformance" is almost always conditional, leveled, etc. Apart of
>this "conditional" nature, formula "failed - means non-conformant"
>doesn't apply for tests for discretional behaviors - this was already
>pointed out in the current OASIS XSLT committee work.

I have opened a new issue, #50, to make sure we close this properly and 
with WG consensus.

(Btw, I will post and announce a new version of the Issues List, hopefully 
by end of today.)

-Lofton.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Feb/0000.html

Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:01:15 UTC