Re: [Draft] Minutes from QA WG Teleconf 2003/03/31

A correction and 2 questions...


If you look at these two issues, I think that we were talking about LC-13, 
not LC-14.  Unless someone disagrees, I am going to apply this to LC-13 
(and final minutes should reflect correction).

Question.  When can we close this issue?  Options:

1.) when we achieve AAA conformance;
2.) now, with the stated Resolution that we will "{ target | commit } for 
AAA conformance".

2nd Question.  We say "target" below.  That is wooly.  Do we target, or do 
we commit?


At 09:41 PM 4/2/03 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>DH: Next LC14. Degree of conformance of SpecGL itself. Reviewer claims we 
>are not AAA, simply because we do not provide the list of test assertions. 
>2nd issue - whether we should be AAA compliant.
>PC: Would checkpoints list be a list of test assertions?
>DH: May not be.
>PC: Would be nice if we could tag TA within the document.
>LR: I agree with it.
>MS: It's not necessarily possible to markup all of the test assertions.
>LR: I don't believe we can automatically generate TAs from the SpecGL.
>KG: May be we should postpone resolution of this issue until we revisit 
>the definition of a TA? We had slightly different opinions.
>PC: I have a problem with interpreting assertions rather then marking them up.
>MS: Volunteered to produce a TA list for the SpecGL.
>DH: Agreed that we are going to produce such a list. Should we target AAA 
>level of conformance? Should we first assess the level of conformance?
>LH: Certainly would like to assess.
>LR: Should we target AAA? How can we ask others to comply with AAA if we 
>LH: I think we agree that we should assess the level we are currently at.
>Action Item for MS to assess the current level of SpecGL conformance. 2 weeks.
>Agreed to target AAA by CR.

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 18:20:46 UTC