5th Virtual Meeting MIG temporary sub-group on Validation and conformity testing 16 November 2015

16th November 2015

virtual connection detail

Proposed Agenda 14:30 -16:00 (CET)

14:30 - 14:45 (Carlo Cipolloni)

  • Introduction and tasks activities overview

14:45 - 15:45 (All)

  • Discussion on procedure to provide comments to ATS

15:45 - 16:00

  • AoB

Minute 5th Web meeting of MIWP-5

The meeting is mainly based on which procedure should be followed to provide comments to ATS documents developed by Ilkka Rinne work.

Carlo has made a shortly presentation on the situation of ATS work progress, identifying which are the parts that at the moment are not completed and the Open issues arise by Ilkka to perform the work. The work clould be considered feasible to have comments for most of ATS, after that presentation a discussion about who is should provide comments and how do that has been opened.

Michael Lutz has presented a template to archive comments for each ATS requirements, based on a table and we have discuss which attributes should be asked.

Some other have recognised the importance to have a internal round to provide comments within the github repository, after that an open consultation in the member State will be lunched by the MIG contact points.

Tim Duffy (UK): Suggest do the open consultation first and give end december final date

Tim Duffy (UK): for comments - comments on each rule - of course most people will only comment on rules they  have queries on

Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo): Good point, Michael, +1 for the table idea

Giacomo Martirano (IT): +1

Thijs Brentjens (NL): +1

freddy (JRC): -1, but open for discussion: why not stick to commenting in github, but clearly indicate the type of comment (ATS or TG)?

Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo): BTW I would also like to point out that a lot of the ATS work was done by the members of this group, so it's not just my work :)

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: +1 to the tables for comments

Giacomo Martirano (IT): Important to collect proposals for text change rather than generic comments, difficult and tiem cnosuming to process

Giacomo Martirano (IT): --- so tables ok for me

Thijs Brentjens (NL): I'm fine with what Michael said.

Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo): FYI: the commenting in Github requires registration & invitation to contributor.

Mig-Sub -Groups 2: Can I ask a "devils advocate" question? If you are *really* honest, who of you would be willing AND available to review the tests within the next 2-3 weeks?

Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo): Good question Michael ;-)

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: end of november is very very ambitious

Tim Duffy (UK): I woudl offer my team to review SOME tests we know about by end december

Thijs Brentjens (NL): For me the upcoming weeks are hard, but I can spend some time (a day or so)

Kent Jonsrud: probably not

Peter Parslow (UK): I have very little availability - but then my member state contact point will be after me (&Tim) to comment on it if you go straight to them!

Giacomo Martirano (IT): Very busy until the end of November

Stefania Morrone: I can spend some time as well

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: review by member states is very important - otherwise we won't achieve commonly agreed tests

Peter Parslow (UK) 2: Yes, we have a change management task: see https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/26

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: we would review the tests by our experts, they are usually familiar with github

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: Probably we need four weeks for the review by MS

Mig-Sub -Groups 2: ge = general   ed = editorial            di = different interpretation          da = disambguation

freddy (JRC): + TG improvement type?

Mig-Sub -Groups 2: ir =improve requirement

Mig-Sub -Groups 2: rr = remove requirement

Thijs Brentjens (NL): detail: maybe "ir" is confusing as an abbreviation, but fine with the list

Thijs Brentjens (NL): +1 to that

Daniela and Sven (DE) 2: ok

Javier Lopez (SP): ok