However, extending the ideas of this paper in a straightforward fashion does not seem to work.
Schlosser[
6]
considered various
$q$
analogues of these alternating sums and derived formulas for
$m\le 4$
, the most plausible being
$${T}_{m,n}\left(q\right)={\sum}_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\left[2k\right]}{\left[2\right]}\left[k{]}^{m1}\right({q}^{\frac{m+1}{2}}{)}^{nk}$$
Standard computer algebra packages are able to find formulas for greater values of
$m$
. It turns out that the coefficient of
${\left(\left[n\right][n+1]\right)}^{k}$
in
${T}_{2m,n}$
is of the form
$$\frac{(1+{q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})(1+{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}{)}^{mk}}{(1+{q}^{\frac{2m+1}{2}})...(1+{q}^{\frac{2k+1}{2}})}({q}^{n}{)}^{mk}{g}_{k,m}(q),$$
where
${g}_{k,m}\left(q\right)$
is a polynomial in
$q$
. For small
$m$
these polynomials are listed in Table 1 . Unfortunately, they do not have nonnegative coefficients, which indicates that this is not the `right'
$q$
analogue of the Salié numbers. It would be particularly nice to have a common
$q$
analogue of Faulhaber and Salié numbers. Note that Guo and Zeng[
4]
proposed a more general
$q$
analogue of Faulhaber's numbers, but these also fail to have nonnegative coefficients.
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}k\backslash m& 1& 2& 3& 4\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 1& 1& 2q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+2& (5{q}^{2}{q}^{\frac{3}{2}}+9q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+5)(q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+1)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}2& & 1& 2q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+2& (5{q}^{2}{q}^{\frac{3}{2}}+9q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+5)(q{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+1)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}3& & & 1& 3{q}^{2}2{q}^{\frac{3}{2}}+4q2{q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+3\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}4& & & & 1\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  

Table 1
.
${g}_{k,m}\left(q\right)$
for
$m\le 3$
Finally, although the appearance of the complete homogeneous symmetric functions is natural, the specialisation involved seems to be interesting and might deserve more attention.

Proof of Theorem 2.1 .
Summing Equation 3 on
$l$
from
$1$
to
$n$
, observing that its left hand telescopes and using Equation 1 on its right hand side we obtain
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\left(\frac{\left[n\right][n+1]}{{q}^{n}}\right)}^{m+1}& =\left[2\right]{\sum}_{k}{h}_{m2k}\left(\right\{1,q{\}}^{k+1}){S}_{2(mk)+1,n}{q}^{n(mk+1)}.\end{array}$$  
Plugging in Equation 2 and exchanging the order of summation, the right hand side becomes
$${\sum}_{l}{\sum}_{k\ge l}{h}_{m2k}\left(\right\{1,q{\}}^{k+1}\left)\right(1{)}^{mkl}\frac{\left[l\right]!}{[mk+1]!}{P}_{mk,mkl}{\left(\frac{\left[n\right][n+1]}{{q}^{n}}\right)}^{l+1}.$$
Comparing coefficients of
${\left(\frac{\left[n\right][n+1]}{{q}^{n}}\right)}^{l+1}$
we see that the two matrices in question are indeed inverses. □
We also copy a simple lemma from Gessel and Viennot[
3]
, that follows easily from the formula for the entries of the inverse of a matrix:
Lemma 2.3.
Let
${\left({A}_{i,j}\right)}_{i,j\in \{1,2,...,m\}}$
be an invertible lower triangular matrix and let
$B$
be its inverse. Then for
$0\le k\le n\le m$
we have
$${B}_{n,k}=\frac{(1{)}^{nk}}{{A}_{k,k},{A}_{k+1,k+1},...,{A}_{n,n}}det{\left({A}_{k+i+1,k+j}\right)}_{i,j\in \{0,1,...,nk1\}}.$$
Finally we can announce our main theorem:
Theorem 2.4.
$$\begin{array}{c}{P}_{m,k}=det{\left({h}_{mki+2j1}\left(\right\{1,q{\}}^{ij+2})\right)}_{i,j\in \{0,1,...,k1\}}\end{array}$$ 
(5)

is the number of weighted families of nonintersecting lattice paths from
$$(0,0),(2,2),...,\left(2(k1),2(k1)\right)$$
to
$$(3,mk1),(5,mk2),...,\left(2(k1)+3,m2k\right),$$
where a vertical step with an even
$x$
coordinate has weight
$q$
and all other steps have weight
$1$
.

Proof.
The determinantal formula follows from the preceding lemma. The combinatorial interpretation is a standard application of the main theorem of nonintersecting lattice paths, and completely analogous to the applications given in Gessel and Viennot[3] . □
Corollary 2.5.
The coefficients of
${P}_{m,k}$
are nonnegative and symmetric.

Proof.
A combinatorial way to see the symmetry is as follows: Modifying the weights such that vertical steps with an odd
$x$
coordinate have weight
$q$
and all the others weight
$1$
does not change the entries of the determinant.
However, consider any given family of paths with weight
${q}^{w}$
, when vertical steps with even
$x$
coordinate have weight
$q$
. After the modification of the weights it will have weight
${q}^{maxw}$
, where
$max$
is the total number of vertical steps in such a family of paths, which implies the claim. □
Remark.
It appears that the polynomials
${P}_{m,k}$
are logconcave, however, we did not pursue this question further.
3 Acknowledgements
Many thanks are due to Michael Schlosser and Christian Krattenthaler for their patience and help with Lemma 2.2 and for pointing out some bad typos in the manuscript. References

Wilfrid Norman Bailey, Generalized hypergeometric series, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, No. 32, StechertHafner, Inc., New York, 1964.

Kristina C. Garrett and Kristen Hummel, A combinatorial proof of the sum of
$q$
cubes, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 11 (2004), no. 1, Research Paper 9, 6 pp. (electronic).

Ira Martin Gessel and Xavier Gérard Viennot, Determinants, paths, and plane partitions,
(1989), 36 pages.
☻ open access ✓

Victor J. W. Guo and Jiang Zeng, A
$q$
analogue of faulhaber's formula for sums of powers, Preprint (2005), 18 pages.

Christian Krattenthaler, HYP and HYPQ: Mathematica packages for the manipulation of binomial sums and hypergeometric series, respectively
$q$
binomial sums and basic hypergeometric series, Journal of Symbolic Computation 20 (1995), no. 56, 737–744.

Michael Schlosser,
$q$
analogues of the sums of consecutive integers, squares, cubes, quarts and quints, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 11 (2004), no. 1, Research Paper 71, 11 pp. (electronic).

Lucy Joan Slater, Generalized hypergeometric functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1966.

Sven Ole Warnaar, On the
$q$
analogue of the sum of cubes, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 11 (2004), no. 1, Research Paper 13, 2 pp. (electronic).