Re: [testing] Minutes from the call

I had another thought about the liaison letter after the call: Instead of stating that all responses will be W3C member-confidential, perhaps we should provide an option for the group to indicate whether they want their response to be public or member-confidential. There may be some organizations that are more open than others.

Thanks,
mav

On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
 wrote:

> Hi all,
> minutes from the last call, also in txt below
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2013/03/27-webtv-minutes.html
> 
> ----
> 27 Mar 2013
> 
>   [2]Agenda
> 
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Agenda_Telco_27th_March_2013
> 
>   See also: [3]IRC log
> 
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/03/27-webtv-irc
> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>          Mark_Vickers, kaz, Graham, sheau, yosuke, Clarke, Bin,
>          giuseppep
> 
>   Regrets
>   Chair
>          Clarke
> 
>   Scribe
>          Mark_Vickers
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * [4]Topics
>     * [5]Summary of Action Items
>     __________________________________________________________
> 
>   clarke: Any open action items?
> 
>   giuseppe: old items cleaned out.
> 
>   clarke: will add action items to subsequent agendas
>   ... Next topic is letter to related organizations
>   ... (Reads draft liaison letter.)
>   ... mav: Should we send a list of specs and ask to check off
>   list?
> 
>   giuseppe: we could reference the table of specs recently
>   posted.
> 
>   sheau: Does link give enough clarity for groups not so familiar
>   with W3C?
> 
>   <giuseppep> alternative link could be this:
>   [6]http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing
> 
>      [6] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing
> 
>   sheau: For example, in ATSC, for example, they'd want more
>   information.
> 
>   clarke: Asks Sheau to draft some text
>   ... each liaison person can tailor the communication.
> 
>   mav: suggests attaching list of spcs
> 
>   clarke: will add list of specs
> 
>   mav: Will info be member confidential or public?
> 
>   giuseppe: We can make aggregate page public
> 
>   <Clarke> Here's the table:
>   [7]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Feature_Coverage_T
>   able
> 
>      [7] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Feature_Coverage_Table
> 
>   giuseppe: Post aggregate responses on the public wiki. Send
>   individual liaison responses only on the member mail list, not
>   on the wiki.
>   ... Explain that there is a need to prioritize W3C testing
>   work.
> 
>   clarke: will ask for three level priority from liaison
>   responses (i.e. low, medium, high)
> 
>   shaeu: Do we want to ask for current level of reference? i.e.
>   already referenced in spec, planned to be referenced, etc.
> 
>   giuseppe: Perhaps addd a column for current spec usage
> 
>   mav: Perhaps use required/optional/no referenced instead of low
>   medium and high
> 
>   clarke: Perhaps: Mandatory, Recommended, Not used
>   ... Other column could show Currently published vs. Future
>   publication
> 
>   Bin: Maybe ask for version number instead of Current/Future
> 
>   sheau: We could also ask them to provide link to spec
> 
>   mav: Column on current usage could be more sensitive.
> 
>   giuseppe: organizations can respond how they wish
> 
>   sheau: Suggest adding a column for comments.
> 
>   clarke: Will send draft to list
> 
>   giuseppe: Also include that response will be kept member
>   confidential.
>   ... asks where TV column came from
> 
>   mav: TV column came from me. We should delete it
> 
>   giuseppe: Suggests removing "Non W3C specs"
> 
>   clarke: Agrees to remove "non-w3c specs"
> 
>   giuseppe: suggest not including table in letter drafts until
>   table more complete
>   ... When do we send it out?
> 
>   clarke: Can be complete by next week. I'll have draft out
>   before next week's meeting.
>   ... Next topic: use cases
> 
>   giuseppe: (Describes process for creating a use cases while
>   Clarke shows on screen sharing.)
>   ... (Describes process for creating ISSUE while Clarke
>   demonstrates on screen sharing.)
>   ... New issue will create email to list.
>   ... Use the ISSUE-nnn in email or just reply to the original
>   automatic posting
> 
>   clarke: Next topic: Giuseppe to introduce his new use case.
> 
>   giuseppe: Functional completeness not sufficient - performance
>   also important for some specs. e.g. spec could be implemented
>   correctly, but too slow to be useful.
>   ... One issue is browser support for timing tests. Some
>   browsers support it, but it's not standard.
> 
>   clarke: Some basic timing features would be useful and would
>   meet this requirement.
>   ... If in test tool or code, you can say START TIMER and STOP
>   TIMER
> 
>   giuseppe: Problem is the response you get from JavaScript is
>   not precise enough, so you need better support.
> 
>   mav: Are there two outputs to this use case: 1. to spec missing
>   API and 2. Suggest where to use performance testing
> 
>   giuseppe: Yes. The two outputs go to two different groups.
>   ... Please provide comments on the use case to the list
> 
>   clarke: closes meeting
> 
> 
> -- 
> Giuseppe Pascale
> Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 15:10:28 UTC