- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:00:53 -0400
- To: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: public-test-infra@w3.org
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. -AB
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2013 12:01:24 UTC