- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:41:24 +0000
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:51 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > I think it would be good if the curators were not just the editors (to avoid > guessing what is in the spec instead of reading it), and it would be good to > have implementers involved there, for the reason you say. > > However, since we're generally facing a shortage of reviewers, I would say > it should just be a preference when the chairs try and recruit curators > rather than an absolute rule. > > > There is already a spot for a test coordinator on each test suite page: > > https://test.csswg.org/suites/css-fonts-3_dev/nightly-unstable/ > > This comes a proposal back in 2013 to have test suite owners. We did not get > many volunteers, and assigning people to the role did not appear to spur > more test suite development (as I recall). Pretty sure I remember talking to fantasai about this in 2010 at my first CSS WG F2F in Oslo; the basic problem here is what it always is: people can't just sign up for taking on large amounts of work without their manager approving it, hence we end up with the same problem as we have attracting editors, which is that people within the WG mostly cannot commit to spending the time on it. /g
Received on Friday, 3 March 2017 16:41:58 UTC