- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:54:49 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
- Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, "public-touchevents@w3.org" <public-touchevents@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 10/28/15 2:30 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: > Ok, given that it won't be taken up by the Web Platform WG, what's the > next step? > > 1) community group? > 2) recharter the working group? > 3) create a new working group? Perhaps it would be useful to have a related call on Tuesday November 3 at the same time PEWG and TECG calls were held (11:00 Boston time). Can the "usual suspects" make that call? Some discussion topics that could help guide a decision on the group admin questions include: TEv2: spec plans and implementation status/plans; PEv2: spec plans and implementation status/plans. Of course we could also use the call to discuss other topics and proposals are welcome. If there appears to be sufficient critical mass to have a call, I will send a draft agenda to both list by November 2 at the latest. -Thanks, AB > I've started a rough new charter for the Pointer Events WG [1] (using > my new charter template). Please provide feedback, issues, or pull > requests to help me improve this charter, if you think this is the > right approach. > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html > > Regards– > –Doug > > On 10/27/15 4:41 PM, Sangwhan Moon wrote: >> The discussion from today says WPWG most likely won't be taking this, or >> at least for now. >> >> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-webapps-minutes.html#item04 >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com >> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> [ Newcomers to this thread can find the head at [StartHere] ] >> >> Hi All, >> >> Another option is to move PointerEvents and/or TouchEvents into the >> Web Platform WG [WPWG]. Among the primary advantage would be more >> "eyes" to provide input and review feedback. Doing so would also >> help reduce group admin overhead and depending on who participates, >> there could be a broader RF commitment for IP. >> >> I won't be at the October 27 WPWG meeting but I just added "Add >> PointerEvents v2 and/or TouchEvents v2 to WPWG?" to the [Agenda] >> (11:15-11:30). >> >> -Thanks, ArtB >> >> [StartHere] >> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015JulSep/0026.html> >> [WPWG] <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/webplatform-charter.html> >> [Agenda] >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/October2015Meeting#Agenda_Tuesday_October_27> >> >> On 7/28/15 2:29 PM, Rick Byers wrote: >> >> +public-pointer-events (did you include public-touchevents by >> mistake?). >> >> Sounds like our options are: >> 1) Extend the PEWG charter in preparation for publishing a Level >> 2 REC document >> or >> 2) Broaden the charter of the TECG to include both touch events >> and pointer events and continue work there until we have a >> candidate spec we want to start down the publishing process. >> >> Do these options effect what mailing lists we use? Eg. if we go >> with #2, can we continue to use public-pointer-events for >> continuity? >> >> I do expect we'll want to publish a PE Level 2 spec within a >> year or so. If that's just as easy with either option then I >> don't have a strong opinion. >> >> Rick >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org >> <mailto:schepers@w3.org> <mailto:schepers@w3.org >> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>>> wrote: >> >> Hi, folks– >> >> Earlier this year, our current charter was extended >> until 09 >> November 2015. We had just published the Pointer Events >> spec as a >> Recommendation, and the Community Group was formed, and >> wanted to >> figure out what our next steps are. >> >> We need to decide if we're going to create a new charter >> for >> review by the Advisory Committee, and if so, what the >> deliverables >> would be, and what the timelines should be. >> >> Right now, I'm not convinced we need a Working Group to >> continue >> in our current state. I think the Community Group might be >> enough >> for now; We need a Working Group to publish Rec-track >> documents, >> but we don't have any publications scheduled, and it's not >> certain >> when we will have. >> >> This mailing list can remain for any necessary discussions. >> >> Our occasional telcons are useful for keeping track of >> implementation progress and bug reports, but we can have >> those >> even without a formal Working Group. >> >> In the Community Group, we can continue the discussions, >> and >> develop a new draft of the spec (or other specs); once we >> have a >> clearer idea what our charter should contain, we can >> recharter >> this WG, or charter a new WG with a broader scope, as >> needed. >> >> I can continue to help out, as needed. I'm being pulled >> into other >> work (W3C is always understaffed, and the Web Payments work >> needs >> some resources), but I can always make time for this group. >> >> Thoughts? Should we recharter in November, or should we >> close the >> Pointer Events WG and operate as a Community Group until we >> need >> to charter a formal WG again? >> >> Regards– >> –Doug >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA] >> Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 10:55:30 UTC