- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:48:04 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Seattle attendees, if you have an opinion about this TTF charter and toolkits topic, please speak up asap, to help Dimitris finish his new draft... At 05:22 AM 1/17/03 +0100, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote: >one comment inlined >On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 02:00 AM, skall@nist.gov wrote: > >>[...] >> >>LR Should the tools reside in QAWG? Should TTF develop templates to >>facilitate tool development? Do we envision TTF building things? >>Dd We should not do maintenance. Don’t know about templates. >>LR Charter should allow us to optionally develop tools to help WGs >>build test >>materials or to help WGs conform to our documents. >>Consensus It’s desirable for TTF to build tools, resources allowing. >>MM Even a “how to” will help. >>Dd We shouldn’t be “out source” for building tests. >>Consensus New bullet develop tools, templates and tool kits of general >>usefulness to help WGs develop test materials. >[dd] I cannot remember either voting for or abstaining from voting on >templates. I agree on the rest, though. Templates will not be included in >the wording I'm about to send for the second TTF draft. I think Mark's characterization is accurate, and you are correct that we did not vote. My remembrance: most of the speakers favored inclusion of generally useful tools/toolkits/templates in the scope and deliverables. There was some dissent but no violent opposition. Therefore -- proceeding informally at this stage -- we recorded the apparent majority opinion. If there is strong objection to putting it in at this stage, then we can leave it out and raise a formal issue. If we put it in but we're not unanimous, then we can raise a formal issue about taking it out. Given the apparent majority opinion towards inclusion, I think the second makes sense. But ... we can go either way. Any other opinions? -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:45:41 UTC