> The reason that the PWG meeting is right away the interoperability
> testing was not to encourage kibitizers. It was done because some
> number of people were going to have to attend both the interoperability
> testing and the PWG meetings and did not want to travel to two
> different locations.
I don't think anyone wishes to deny access to the testing effort
under any circumstances...right?? Or are we mistaken here?
Funny, but I was just hoping to have a repeat performance of what
took place in Portland, Oregon, last July. As I recall, there were
no such statements made to the effect of excluding folks who just
wanted to watch. And (as I recall, anyway), having kibitzers at
that event did not in any way impede the effort.
Am I mistaken in these recollections?
> I am concerned if people think they can come to the interoperability
> testing just to observe. That is not the intent of the interoperability
> testing and will be counter productive to getting the testing completed.
> There really are two questions. First, should kibitizer's be allowed to
> attend the testing? They will be put to work if they are allowed to attend.
> Secondly, should they help share in the cost of testing?
This is all very strange. What is wrong with having PWG participants
observe the action?
Please, please, PLEASE remember that, unlike Portland, this time we
KNOW IN ADVANCE that we have some issues to work out, particularly
those dealing with the critical Alert Table definitions. The more
people who see the actual results (in person) should serve to reduce
the amount of time needed to relay the results to those interested
in helping formulate the solutions to the known problems.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------