- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:30:15 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 8/7/13 3:38 PM, ext Peter Linss wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 9:59 AM, James Graham wrote: > > > > > On 2013-08-07 09:34, Peter Linss wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Ms2ger wrote: > > > > This statement is untrue and misleading. Firstly, our primary focus > > > > of testing is getting specs _out_ of CR and into REC, getting to CR > > > > does not require tests, but this is not the "only" thing we care about > > > > regarding tests. > > > > > > > > > I don't know who "our" is supposed to be in this case > > > > The "our" in that context was the CSS WG. > Speaking as a WG Chair, one of my main reasons for support this testing > effort is to facilitate moving specs through the CR process. > > > but it's certainly not my primary goal, and I don't think it should be anyone else's either. > > > > Wow. Ok. > > I can understand why people have different goals for w-p-t and at the > same time I don't quite understand the negativity (stop energy?) towards > those that want to move specs through CR. Hi Art, I attempted to address these issues in another thread[1]. Please LMK if you feel this needs further clarification. Thanks, --tobie --- [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2013JulSep/0163.html
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2013 16:30:26 UTC