Meeting minutes
August meetings
<Matt_King> Plan to skip August 12 meeting
<Matt_King> August 12 at 11 pacific will be sprint review./planning meeting for aria-at app. Noon pacific community group meeting cancelled.
<Matt_King> Next CG meeting August 19.
Product Version Requirements
<Matt_King> Wiki page: https://
Matt_King: jumping to conclusion: test plan review does not require any specific browser/at version? test plan results collection do not require the same browser/at version?
James: do we give users options for versions or ask them to self-report?
Matt_King: right now it's a freeform entry
James: we really need full versions in exactly the same format
Hadi: we really want people using latest right?
Matt_King: it would be great to also have dates attached to all the versions in order to make historical comparisons
Seth: What is the implication on Test Reports? Test reports are kind of like a train that takes a while to get to the station (reviews take a while before publication)... doesn't it feel arbitrary that certain results are reviewed together just because they happened to left the station at the same time? what happens after that report gets published and someone comes back with the latest latest version
Matt_King: this basically means test reports are no longer needed. runs can be reviewed independently and would have their own status
Seth: I'm as eager as anyone else to make app work for the group... i just want to point out that there are some edge cases and ambiguities in the working mode that we need to address before even talking about the implications on the app / product
Matt_King: let's continue to review the working mode. action items: seth / rich / bocoup, provide comments by august 19
Seth: does this have any implication on deploy schedule?
Matt_King: no
Matt_King: we also need to clarify other parts of the working mode that are implicated by changes in the versioning requirements. for example, we need to clearly distinguish the different in status between reports and results (e.g. report is in draft, wide review... and also results can be reviewed)
James: by the way, it seems like vendors shouldn't need to approve results.
Matt_King: that's right, i think it's better if it
Matt_King: if it's just that they can object
James: and will browser vendors need a window to provide feedback too?
Matt_King: I don't think so