IRC log of qa on 2005-03-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #qa
15:56:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:56:36 [dom]
Meeting: QA Working Group Teleconference
15:56:39 [dom]
Chair: Karl Dubost
15:56:50 [dom]
Scribe: Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux
15:56:53 [dom]
ScribeNick: dom
15:57:24 [dom]
15:57:38 [dom]
agenda+ F2F in Dublin
15:57:45 [dom]
agenda+ SpecGL issues
15:58:58 [lofton]
lofton has joined #qa
16:00:07 [dom]
zakim, call dom-617
16:00:07 [Zakim]
ok, dom; the call is being made
16:00:08 [Zakim]
QA_QAWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:09 [Zakim]
16:00:11 [karl]
zakim, call karl-work
16:00:11 [Zakim]
ok, karl; the call is being made
16:00:46 [karl]
zakim, drop karl-work
16:00:46 [Zakim]
sorry, karl, I do not see a party named 'karl-work'
16:01:13 [karl]
zakim, call karl-work
16:01:13 [Zakim]
ok, karl; the call is being made
16:01:20 [karl]
16:01:28 [dom]
try the web dialout
16:01:33 [Zakim]
16:02:05 [Zakim]
16:02:08 [Zakim]
16:02:18 [karl]
On queue are: Karl-Work [16:01:55Z]
16:02:41 [dom]
Zakim, [IBMCambridge] is DaveMarston
16:02:41 [Zakim]
+DaveMarston; got it
16:02:49 [lofton]
zakim, call lofton-home
16:02:49 [Zakim]
ok, lofton; the call is being made
16:02:51 [Zakim]
16:02:56 [karl]
zakim, call karl-work
16:02:56 [Zakim]
ok, karl; the call is being made
16:03:41 [Zakim]
16:03:59 [dom]
Regrets: Richard Kennedy
16:04:03 [Zakim]
16:04:15 [Zakim]
16:05:03 [Zakim]
16:05:22 [dom]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
16:05:22 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "F2F in Dublin" taken up [from dom]
16:05:49 [dom]
dom: anybody prefering July vs August?
16:06:04 [dom]
patrick: I don't have a preference
16:06:11 [dom]
... equivalent wrt hosting too
16:06:19 [dom]
dimitris: I'd prefer Aug 9-11
16:06:23 [dom]
dom: so would I
16:06:47 [dom]
tim: this would impact our timetable wrt end of charter, since we're moving it back
16:08:25 [dom]
RESOLVED: we're moving the meeting to Aug 9 til Aug 11
16:08:42 [dom]
zakim, close this agendum
16:08:42 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
16:08:43 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:08:45 [Zakim]
2. SpecGL issues [from dom]
16:08:46 [dom]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:08:46 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "SpecGL issues" taken up [from dom]
16:09:28 [dom]
Topic: Issue 995 "old potential issues"
16:09:42 [dom]
Lofton: I thought I had to review them by April 4th
16:09:47 [dom]
... I haven't done it yet
16:10:36 [dom]
Topic: Issue 983
16:11:18 [dom]
karl: need of an example demonstrating the use of an ICS as part of a conformance claim
16:11:23 [dom]
... didn't find exact examples
16:11:31 [dom]
... but ATAG 1.0 is close enough
16:11:48 [dom]
... since they require to explain what implementers have not implemented
16:12:01 [dom]
... so we can either change our requirements so that ATAG works
16:12:13 [dom]
... or make it an example with reservations
16:13:14 [dom]
... UAAG is another similar example
16:13:24 [dom]
... see
16:14:04 [dom]
dom: we could use them as "could be better" examples
16:14:30 [dom]
karl: but is what we recommend really better?
16:15:20 [dom]
... isn't it enough to simply list what hasn't been implemented?
16:15:34 [dom]
dom: I think the point of the GP is to have a formalized way to express these data
16:15:49 [dom]
... not a strong supporter of this GP, so probably not the best input
16:16:05 [dom]
patrick: I think it is useful to require it, it's useful information
16:16:38 [dom]
karl: so, let's add them as 2 examples, saying we recommend to require a link to the fulled ICS
16:16:51 [dom]
16:17:07 [dom]
... and that the examples are the 1st steps into that direction
16:17:46 [dom]
lynne: are we going to include our own example, with SpecGL?
16:17:52 [dom]
... this would be an exact example
16:19:07 [dom]
... linking to a completed ICS of SpecGL for SpecGL, and showing it as an example of a claim using an ICS
16:19:32 [dom]
karl: we need a volunteer to actually fill the ICS, as acurately as possible
16:19:47 [dom]
... this can only be done when the spec is edited as final
16:20:47 [dom]
lynne: depends on when this needs to be done
16:21:02 [dom]
... can we leave this open until when the doc is ready?
16:21:16 [dom]
... I can't commit to it now, but maybe later
16:21:52 [dom]
... that's part of the TAG comments
16:22:07 [dom]
karl: let's record in the issue that this isn't resolved until the ICS is filled
16:22:38 [dom]
RESOLVED: we'll publish a fullfiled ICS for SpecGL and use it as an example for the relevant GP
16:23:10 [dom]
tim: how does the ATAG conformance levels fit in our SpecGL view?
16:23:28 [dom]
karl: ATAG's conformance model is pretty complex, using atomic details
16:23:44 [dom]
... the ICS just needs to respect what the spec says
16:23:57 [dom]
... so an ATAG ICS can be filled with multiple levels
16:25:53 [dom]
tim: when claiming conformance to a certain level, you declare N/A for items in other levels
16:26:20 [dom]
... but sometime, people use it as a way to show where they are in the process of getting to this and this level, plus some other items they may have met
16:26:27 [dom]
... important as a marketing tool
16:27:09 [dom]
lynne: when claiming conformance to a level, you should only list the relevant checkpoints in your ICS
16:28:04 [dom]
... it's up to the spec authors to decide how their ICS is organized wrt profiles, levels, ...
16:28:12 [dom]
... I don't think there are wrong answers on that topic
16:28:38 [dom]
tim: just mentioning that often, an ICS can be used outside of a conformance claim
16:28:59 [dom]
... it may still have value out of a conformance claim, e.g. as a marketing opportunity
16:29:39 [dom]
Lofton: I still dispute that using an ICS is in fact still making a claim
16:30:37 [dom]
... we shouldn't bother about how marketing uses an ICS
16:31:40 [dom]
[same ole discussion restarting]
16:33:05 [dom]
RESOLVED: We'll also use ATAG and UAAG as part of our example for including an ICS as part of a conformance claim (issue 983)
16:33:07 [dom]
Topic: Issue 1041 - Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
16:33:31 [dom]
Topic: Issue 1058 New Numbering Structure
16:33:45 [dom]
karl: I've integrated the new numbering scheme in the Editors version of SpecGL
16:33:55 [dom]
... unless anybody objects, we should close that issue
16:34:04 [dom]
dom: sounds good to me
16:34:08 [dom]
lynne: to me too
16:34:26 [dom]
karl: dom, can you use an XSLT to create the ToC for the document?
16:34:28 [dom]
dom: sure
16:34:36 [dom]
karl: also, we'll need a new ICS for the document
16:35:17 [dom]
ACTION dom: to update his XSLT stylesheets to create a ToC and ICS for the editors version
16:35:34 [dom]
karl: also, should we publish the correspondance table as an appendix?
16:35:48 [dom]
... so that people used to the old numbering scheme can find their ways
16:36:17 [dom]
dom: I don't think it's useful to have in the document
16:36:24 [dom]
... what about linking it from the Changelog?
16:36:43 [dom]
ACTION kar: to create the correspondance table between old and new numbering in QA space and link it from changelog
16:36:50 [dom]
16:37:05 [dom]
RESOLVED: issue 1058 is accepted as closed
16:37:27 [dom]
Topic: Issue 1041 - Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
16:37:42 [dom]
-> Lynne's proposal
16:37:51 [dom]
karl: we need to get consensus on this issue
16:38:59 [dom]
lynne: I agreed with some part of Lofton's comments wrt implemented/tested
16:39:40 [dom]
lofton: I still think it's absurd to work around conformance claims and ICS
16:42:14 [dom]
[and again, discussion on whether an ICS can be used for anything else but conforming claim]
16:43:18 [dom]
... I disagree with our approach, and I don't think what lynne suggested reflects what was decided
16:44:41 [dom]
karl: I'm satisfied with Lynne's proposal, but would rather get real consensus on this
16:44:59 [dom]
-> lofton's counter proposal
16:45:23 [dom]
lofton: I think Lynne's proposal is still better than nothing
16:46:22 [dom]
RESOLVED: issue 1041 is resolved per Lynne's amended proposal
16:46:52 [dom]
ACTION karl: to incorporate last changes from Lynne on ICS definition
16:47:05 [dom]
Topic: Issue 1059 Specification definition
16:47:21 [dom]
-> Issue 0159
16:47:30 [dom]
16:47:38 [lofton]
16:50:20 [dom]
karl: reading old and new definition
16:50:29 [dom]
karl: reading old and new definition]
16:50:41 [dom]
patrick, dave, tim: the ISO one reads better
16:50:46 [lynne]
lynne has joined #qa
16:51:09 [lynne]
specification - document that prescribes technical requirements to be fulfilled by a product, process or service
16:51:15 [lynne]
From ISO Guide 2-4
16:51:45 [dom]
RESOLVED: to use ISO's definition of "specification" for SpecGL and ViS, referencing ISO Guide 2-4
16:52:40 [dom]
ACTION karl to update SpecGL -inline and glossary- and QA Glossary with ISO's def of spec, plus add a ref to it
16:53:15 [dom]
Topic: issue 1144 rewording GP 2.3 to be less workflow oriented
16:53:50 [dom]
-> rewording GP 2.3 to be less workflow oriented
16:53:59 [dom]
16:54:41 [dom]
Dave: there was some discussion on the verbiage used for the good practice
16:55:21 [dom]
karl: Agree with Dom that the proposed sentence was a bit long
16:55:41 [dom]
-> Dave's latest proposal
16:55:54 [dom]
dave: sent a proposal this morning in 9 (long) words "When imposing requirements by normative references, anticipate conformance dependencies. "
16:56:37 [dom]
karl: what do you mean by "anticipate"?
16:56:50 [dom]
dave: that you explains somehwere in your specs how the conformance models interact
16:57:06 [dom]
karl: I think the 1st part is fine
16:57:13 [dom]
... but I don't think the 2nd one is testable
16:58:06 [dom]
dom: we really need this to be about results in the spec vs process to go there
16:58:38 [dom]
dave: issue is whether "provide" is strong enough
16:58:42 [dom]
... what about "address"
16:58:46 [dom]
16:59:04 [dom]
... this makes it clear you intend to see something in the verbiage
16:59:52 [dom]
RESOLVED: ex GP 2.3B reworded in "When imposing requirements by normative references, address conformance dependencies. "
17:00:58 [dom]
RESOLVED: we adopt the rest of Dave's proposal as is for issue 1060
17:01:02 [dom]
17:01:30 [dom]
Topic: next meeting
17:01:59 [dom]
dom: chaired by Patrick, on Apr 4th; patrick will need to send the agenda since neither karl nor I are goign to be aroudn before that
17:02:04 [dom]
... (no meeting next week)
17:02:26 [dom]
karl: I'll try to do as much work as possible this week on the document
17:02:32 [dom]
... but we need to work on the ICS
17:02:46 [Zakim]
17:02:47 [Zakim]
17:02:48 [Zakim]
17:02:50 [Zakim]
17:02:50 [dom]
ACTION dimitris to develop a detailed implementation report for SpecGL
17:02:53 [Zakim]
17:02:55 [Zakim]
17:02:56 [dom]
ACTION dimitris: to develop a detailed implementation report for SpecGL
17:02:58 [Zakim]
17:03:00 [Zakim]
17:03:40 [Zakim]
17:03:56 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Dom, MSkall/LynneR, Patrick, DaveMarston, Lofton, MSkall, Dimitris_Dimitriadis, Tim_Boland, Karl
17:03:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #qa
17:04:07 [dom]
RRSAgent, make log public
17:04:13 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
17:04:25 [dom]
RRSAgent, make draft minutes
17:04:25 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make draft minutes', dom. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:04:34 [dom]
RRSAgent, bye
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: dom to to update his XSLT stylesheets to create a ToC and ICS for the editors version [1]
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: kar to to create the correspondance table between old and new numbering in QA space and link it from changelog [2]
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: karl to to incorporate last changes from Lynne on ICS definition [3]
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: dimitris to to develop a detailed implementation report for SpecGL [4]
17:04:34 [RRSAgent]
recorded in