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

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

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 21:47:57 +0000
To: "'Tobie Langel'" <tobie.langel@gmail.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: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C351E4A7E07@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.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). 
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.

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
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 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 It is no longer maintained.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
Received on Friday, 28 March 2014 21:48:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:59:03 UTC