V3 Publishing ConCall Minutes 20100331

Return to Publishing Committee

Minutes of Recent Publishing Conference Calls

Present

Beeler (GWB), Kreisler (AK), Lloyd (DL), Seppala (GS), Stechishin (AS), Walden (AW)

Agenda

Add quality review description to agenda items

Review Minutes of March 24, 2010

Not done

Notes from Don Lloyd

There were issues reported with accessing preview site, wiki, and the main site

• AW had problems getting ballot site, will review to get content fixed

DL in contact with people who have issues

Update: By end of meeting, DL heard from Josh about the slow access to the sites, known issue

QA reports

GWB: make it possible for DL to run QA report without going back to PubDb environment

There is a series of tests, results link points to actual results, rest of the QA report in mainly boilerplate.

There was a wrestle with missing static models, content where no static model file but reference in the PubDB

Currently down to handful of errors (did have 100s)

One major change to the generator, GWB is about to pass to DL. Generator no longer requires ballot status to be updated in the PubDB, does a lookup against domain.

Preview test and report will almost completely predict where schema will fail to validate.

GWB put to the group, with QA report, how should it be used within the context of the ballot?

• Proposed classify error into 2 categories, flag with either field or colour
  • Fatal error in schema or MIF content
  • Non-critical errors

AK: partially believes the content should be perfect, but is reasonable good enough? GWB: 2 directories? valid/invalid

Identified GS issues from some 2 weeks back with X_ domains versus value set

• GS reiterated that the RMIM designer did not show it as error

Some Scheduling (SC domain) interaction errors showed up GS: not active

AK: Can we put link to the QA report at the beginning of each domain. GWB: make the report an annex, some fiddling to make the report show up as a standard TOC entry (and left-hand side menu item)

Some discussion on how to handle domains with critical issues in the ballot process:

• AK: ballot comment requesting identified errors must be fixed
• GWB: need to code the difference between (significant and non-significant errors)
• AK: petition TSC for negative vote with significant QA issues
• GWB: would rather propose a process to cast a negative ballot (change to bylaws) by an quality committee (MnM, InM, Vocab, ITS are possible members)