W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Draft Minutes of Wednesday, 8 January F2F Afternoon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:48:04 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030117083545.03657590@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Seattle attendees, if you have an opinion about this TTF charter and 
toolkits topic, please speak up asap, to help Dimitris finish his new draft...

At 05:22 AM 1/17/03 +0100, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

>one comment inlined
>On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 02:00  AM, skall@nist.gov wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>
>>LR  Should the tools reside in QAWG?  Should TTF develop templates to
>>facilitate tool development?  Do we envision TTF building things?
>>Dd  We should not do maintenance.  Don’t know about templates.
>>LR  Charter should allow us to optionally develop tools to help WGs 
>>build test
>>materials or to help WGs conform to our documents.
>>Consensus  It’s desirable for TTF to build tools, resources allowing.
>>MM  Even a “how to” will help.
>>Dd  We shouldn’t be “out source” for building tests.
>>Consensus  New bullet  develop tools, templates and tool kits of general
>>usefulness to help WGs develop test materials.
>[dd] I cannot remember either voting for or abstaining from voting on 
>templates. I agree on the rest, though. Templates will not be included in 
>the wording I'm about to send for the second TTF draft.

I think Mark's characterization is accurate, and you are correct that we 
did not vote.  My remembrance:  most of the speakers favored inclusion of 
generally useful tools/toolkits/templates in the scope and 
deliverables.  There was some dissent but no violent opposition.  Therefore 
-- proceeding informally at this stage -- we recorded the apparent majority 
opinion.

If there is strong objection to putting it in at this stage, then we can 
leave it out and raise a formal issue.  If we put it in but we're not 
unanimous, then we can raise a formal issue about taking it out.  Given the 
apparent majority opinion towards inclusion, I think the second makes 
sense.  But ... we can go either way.

Any other opinions?

-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:45:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:12 GMT