Re: [Testing TF] First Meet-Up 18Oct, 15:00UTC

On 12/10/2023 16:12, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I would like to see the Testing TF make a list of deliverables for 
> itself, even if those deliverables are a recommendation for what the 
> CG should make. But, ideally for me, I'd love to see the TF take on:
>
>   * A public Web site where you can submit a server for review and get
>     an automated score (0 to 100) on spec compliance
>   * (Optional) A command-line testing system that can be used in
>     development environments or CI
>
> I know that's a lot, but it's what we need.
>
That's a fair ask, and I hope uncontroversial and popular as a set of 
goals!  We can add a brief 5minute update about this "big picture" and 
timelines to the agenda on Wednesday but I'd like to keep that kind of 
talk on-list if possible, as not to detract time from the headliners and 
the scheduled topic. If people want a separate 30- or 60-minute meeting 
just for planning, I'd be happy to throw a separate meeting on the 
calendar any businessday or saturday in October.

As for 5 half-baked cakes, I'd note that much of the work already 
underway is grant-funded and on set timelines, so if those get us 80% of 
the way to feature-completeness on those goals, the remaining 20% could 
probably be done with volunteer labor if we can parallelize and get the 
gantt-charting just right. Mostly, my short-term goal is establishing a 
common language and workflows for:
1. identifying disagreements that will take time to reach consensus on 
(to be parallelized),
2. harvesting feedback for spec refinement, and
3. onramping one another to the repos and development tools/styles each 
project is using, to minimize barriers to productive, accepted merge 
requests on each.

I would underline that if we keep the focus on #3 and scribe those 
sections carefully, then individuals and corporations that want this 
process to go faster will have many ways to put their shoulder to the 
task :D
>
> P.S. There's a little bit about recording meetings in the W3C process doc:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#meeting-recording
>
> ...which seems in line with your thoughts.
>
Oh good point, I missed a requirement. I was planning to push the 
compressed recordings to the SocialCG github myself after the meetings 
where guests want to be recorded, as I've seen other CGs do. I was 
tacitly hoping the chairs would know how those get 
"archived"/indexed/registered by W3C after they're up there in the 
immutable microsoft-sponsored buckets?

Pumped,
__juan