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

Re: Draft Minutes of Wednesday, 8 January F2F Afternoon

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:56:58 +0100
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Message-Id: <12C6BFCA-2A45-11D7-9F71-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
comments inlined
On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 04:48  PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>
> 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.
>
My only problem is that I don't think I correctly understand the 
concept of templates. If explained to me, maybe we can work around it 
smoothly.

> Any other opinions?
>
> -Lofton.
>
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 12:57:13 GMT

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