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

Tobie, I am in fact recommending that the wiki be maintained and "offering to do so". I think there's value in a wiki-based tool for communicating plans/status to those interested. The TTWF site can also be updated to make some of that clearer, that's what I have been referring to as helping build content on the TTWF site.

And yes, we are planning to "just do it". Perhaps enough talk about it, for now. See you on the wiki, lists, and github.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | AT&T

From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie.langel@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 3:21 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
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 Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:47 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com<mailto:bs3131@att.com>> wrote:
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).

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.

Given that I'm hearing you suggesting the wiki needs to be maintained, but not offering to do so yourself, I've added a warning at the top of each page which indicates that the wiki is no longer maintained and that the canonical source of information for the testing effort is now the Test the Web Forward website (https://www.w3.org/wiki/Template:Testing_header).

[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.

It's the first link on the page and has been the main communication channel for this effort for over a year.

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.

I'm seeing a lot of vendors very effectively applying resources using these channels. Frankly, I'm not sure who you're referring to by "those deciding where to apply resources," but at this point, they're chimeras. I'm afraid you'll see very little support from the people actually doing the work to cater for their requirements.

[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?

Contribution guidelines are linked from the footer of every page of the Test the Web Forward website. There's a direct editing link on every documentation page. I'm not sure how e can make the process clearer.

[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.

For the record, the funded program plan is something that W3C membership has requested W3C to organize, not the other way round.

We do care about specific specs and will be contributing to those,

Fantastic, may I suggest you make your commitment for those on the test-infra mailing list to avoid duplicating efforts.

as well as the broader tooling for the goals which have apparently fallen by the wayside.

They haven't. Quite the contrary, actually. The fact that they don't meet your requirements is for you to solve by applying your resources to it. You can't claim in the same paragraph that you prefer using your resources exclusively in your own interest and then complain that others are doing the same thing.

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:

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the pushback you're getting. No one disagrees these are critical. It's just that talking about them without providing funds or engineering resources and actually doing the work is a waste of everyone's time.

* knowing what test coverage we have, quality and run-history of the tests, what they relate to (spec clauses/assertions)

Very valuable indeed. I suggest you start working on this immediately.

* capturing test results and importing them into a database (e.g. date, device, browser, test, result)

Likewise. Feel free to provide a qualified engineer to work on this. He or she will be welcomed by the community and I'm sure W3C staff will go out of their way to help him/her in this effort.

* querying the test results database and providing reports

And again. May I suggest providing adequate resources and just doing the work?

Best,

--tobie