Re: [DRAFT] 21-March-2002 QA Working Group Teleconference

At 11:17 AM 3/22/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanks for taking the minutes.  Corrections are below
>>KG: agree
>>LR: does it apply to validator?
>>MS: we made the distinction for validators.  For now, compliance 
>>validation is syntax validation is not only correct.
>>LR: You should add a disclaimer TS or validator.
>>KG: you can't be sure of the validator and TS
>>MS: agree
>>LR: definition of TMaterials is defined in my document.
>>We provide a disclaimer for TS or Test Materials.
>LR definition of TMaterials is defined in the Introduction of this document.

==> QA Glossary [1]

(Add validator, test materials to QA Glossary).

Btw, [1] is not yet linked from anywhere on our QA pages, as far as I could 
find with a quick look at "Resources" and other places.

>>Checkpoint 7.4. If transfer of the test materials to W3C is planned, 
>>update the QA commitments in the Working Group charter if necessary. 
>>[Priority 2]
>>LR: Process difficult
>>KD: explain the process + pb with the end of life to the WG
>>LR/KG: Discussion on rechartering.
>>LR: it should be already there.
>>  remove the CP or P3.
>>LR: Removing it. Consensus
>>KG: what we should do with that
>>LR: capture it a paragraph.
>LR if possible, capture it in a paragraph and put as part of the Guideline 
>7 explanation

I think that the W3C Process Document provides for modification of the 
charter when the WG's deliverables change.  See [2].  There is apparently a 
lot of latitude in what is "substantial" enough to warrant revisions.  I 
thought that the checkpoint was useful, but I don't feel strongly about 
it.  The new explanation ought to refer to the Process requirements.  The 
word "re-charter" is probably best avoided, as it is hard to decide what it 
means in terms of activities that [1] defines.  I.e., the Process Document 
does not define the concept.



Received on Saturday, 30 March 2002 19:21:49 UTC