FW: ACTION ITEM: Vote on Discretionary Items report byend-of-dayMonday (4/23)

[Lynda VanVleet <lvanvleet@classiq.com>]

From Lynda - my voting
> 1. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Testable" belong there?
>    If not, state your objections.

    I vote they all belong there

> 2. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Testable Discretionary
>    Items to Postpone" are testable? Do you agree that they should be
>    postponed? If not, state your objections.

    I will agree that they should be postponed.

> 3. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Acknowledged But Not
>    Testable" belong there? (These items would go on the questionnaire,
>    but associated test cases would always be excluded. There are some
>    tests that can use generated IDs, nodes from multiple documents, or
>    output HTML character entities without running afoul of these items,
>    so those cases would not be flagged.)
>    If not, state your objections.

        I think Vendor and test lab may have to deal with it but they need
to be separated from other discretionary items

> 4. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Out of Scope" belong
>    there, given clarification (G) above? If not, state your objections.

        I think "out-of-scope" items belong there.

> 5. Do you agree that we have asked for enough information for test
>    cataloging, suite rendition, and use of the suite by a test lab?
>    If not, please ELABORATE.
>
        I think we have gone above and beyond because of the categoring of
all the discretionary items.