W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Testing and WebMob (was: [W3C Webmob] Call Tomorrow (19th March) Cancelled)

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:26:24 +0100
To: "'Tobie Langel'" <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
Cc: "'Dominique Hazael-Massieux (dom@w3.org)'" <dom@w3.org>, "'Natasha Rooney'" <nrooney@gsma.com>, "'W3C Webmob Public'" <public-web-mobile@w3.org>, 'MarkCrandon' <IMCEAMAILTO-mcrandon+40mozilla+2Ecom@local>, "'public-web-and-tv@w3.org'" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xdg5qar0y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:47:57 +0100, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>  

> I don't agree that the wiki should be "killed". I do think it's one of  
> the most accessible mediums (needing to be maintained of course).

Maintaining the wiki, even slowly, strikes me as a really useful  
definition of "leading some work".

I also find that managing people who do test development directly is more  
efficient than sacking them and giving the money to W3C. But I have also  
found that a happy medium is often to effectively ask those people to do  
the relevant portion of their work directly within the framework of W3C.

This way if the wiki is a priority for you, you work to maintain it. If  
tests for SomeML or the thingyAPI are what you need, build them directly  
within W3C. And if you're just trying to help the work forward, maybe  
asking which areas are the highest priority for others gives some ideas  
about where you get most benefit for your contributions.

> But before there is unilateral action to delete the content there,  
> *please* ensure that all users of that content (including us) have a  
> chance to download it.

Well, it's there now. I would be surprised if W3C ever deleted it (given  
their "cool URIs don't change" policy that they pretty often observe).



> Other responses below.
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie.langel@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 1:36 PM
> Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux (dom@w3.org); Natasha Rooney; W3C Webmob  
> Public; MarkCrandon; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Testing and WebMob (was: [W3C Webmob] Call Tomorrow (19th  
> March) Cancelled)
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 20:42, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the guidance, Tobie. And apologies for any unintended  
>> offense (certainly none was intended). The lack of focus is a  
>> perception I have due to the fact that the current activity is not very  
>> apparent in any really accessible way, e.g. regular meetings, an  
>> archived mail list, up-to-date info on the wiki, etc. Thus I have  
>> difficulty assessing what is the current activity level and where we  
>> can get engaged.
> The wiki should be killed. It is no longer maintained.
>> Re the channels on TTWF, do you mean those at  
>> http://testthewebforward.org/discuss.html ?
>> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-testtwf/ (very light  
>> traffic)
>> * irc channel: irc.w3.org#testing (not a good option for many of us  
>> behind corporate firewalls and not able to install IRC clients to stay  
>> connected all the time, or to review what's happened/discussed  
>> recently... it's OK for meetings but not as a main medium of engagement)
>> * https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests and the resources that one  
>> can find referenced there
>>  * https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues and  
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pulls (useful to track what  
>> is being done at a granular level, but not really replacing a forum,  
>> mail list, or wiki where things can be discussed)
>>  * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/ (very  
>> light traffic)
> The irc channel,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/ mailing list,
> github repository and testthewebforward.org blog are the key channels.
> [bryan] It would be good to link the  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/ list on the TTWF  
> site - it's not currently referenced as a way to get engaged. The blog  
> is a one-way channel, and github is a really low-level communication  
> medium - OK for contributors not so much for those trying to assess  
> where this is going. If all you are looking for is grass-roots support,  
> then OK, but those deciding where to apply resources are impacted by the  
> accessibility of these communication mediums - a fact, whether one  
> chooses to acknowledge it.
> If you have firewall issues with irc may I suggest using a hosted
> client such irccloud.com. As you're logged in though their service,
> you can catch up on conversations that happened while you were away.
> [bryan] OK, thanks for the info. At $5/month this does not seem like too  
> bad an option.
>> For those on the inside of this activity, actively engaged and setup  
>> with the tools to being engaged as needed, this might be an adequate  
>> set of resources. But for those attempting to get engaged, it  
>> represents a significant barrier.
> I'm sorry if this is the case. We've done our best to improve this
> (and I think we've been rather successful given the recent uptake).
> Frankly, we haven't heard such complains recently. That said, there's
> always room for improvement. Unfortunately, we lack resources to
> provide better docs, regular updates to what's going on, etc. maybe
> that's something you'd be interested to provide (e.g. through
> fortnightly posts on the testthewebforward blog).
> [bryan] We do intend to help update the content on TTWF, as we develop  
> more exact/useful guidelines on how to get engaged. How do we get on the  
> list of TTWF blog authors?
>> And it remains very difficult (to me at least) to draw any overall  
>> picture of how this program is working and where it is attempting to go  
>> as a coherent community effort.
> Really? That's rather surprising. Much like any open source projects,
> contribution are driven by contributors' needs. When a vendor cares
> about a given technology, tests tend to appear as if by magic.
> Likewise, vendors who want to run these tests internally tend to build
> and share tools to do so. If you have specific requirements, you might
> consider ponying up resources to build them your best option. And
> you'll find the community welcoming should you do so.
> [bryan] Unfortunately for the funded program plan, we like many others  
> find that we have more freedom to apply them and get more for our  
> resources when we use them directly. We do care about specific specs and  
> will be contributing to those, as well as the broader tooling for the  
> goals which have apparently fallen by the wayside. If we find a  
> conducive environment in W3C in which to work on those goals, we will  
> pursue them under the TTWF umbrella, but that at this point is  
> questionable given all the pushback I seem to be getting on even  
> continuing the dialog on these goals:
> * knowing what test coverage we have, quality and run-history of the  
> tests, what they relate to (spec clauses/assertions)
> * capturing test results and importing them into a database (e.g. date,  
> device, browser, test, result)
> * querying the test results database and providing reports
> --tobie

Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 08:27:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:21 UTC