W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:12:05 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <f221a76a-f9e0-6d6a-d9f2-cecdf5171495@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 18/12/2016 15:59, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

>> I have not heard an outcry from CSS

Then I suggest W3M improves its internal reporting process. Several
W3C Staff members were in the CSS WG room in Lisbon for the VERY heated
and long discussions about incubation. Several members of the WG were
shocked to discover incubation was now chartered.

I have also received messages of support from CSS WG members since the
start of this current thread. Please understand they're not commenting
here because they're not ACs, and Process is outside of their individual
missions. I asked them to contribute here anyway but not sure they can,
though...

On 19/12/2016 04:39, Florian Rivoal wrote:

> Various members of the CSSWG were shocked and surprised during TPAC when Google attempted to use this part of the charter to prevent a feature proposed by someone else to be added to an existing CSS Editor's Draft and pushed for it to be done in WICG instead, against the wishes of everyone else in the WG.

I want it to be noted from the minutes you quoted it's not always
"those two french trouble makers". I remained totally silent during
all sessions on incubation in Lisbon (after the initial shock when
Google replied to me "wait, it IS in the Charter") and did not even
express an opinion on IRC.
I wanted to hear everyone on that subject first. The whole WG
contributed to the discussion, and a lot of people in the room
nodded sympathetically when Florian recap'd the situation,
detailed the issues and explained this way of doing was a bad one.

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 10:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 December 2016 10:12:37 UTC