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

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:21:35 -0500
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <0855fc16-e819-bbd1-e13c-85c2198bf39c@w3.org>

On 12/22/2016 4:12 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 12/22/2016 04:44 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> I just want to make sure that I understand the use case.  Are you saying
>> that without the MAY statement (that work may be incubated in WICG), 
>> that
>> it would have been prohibited for CSS to pick up anything that was
>> incubated in WICG?
> The CSSWG can pick up anything that is in scope for the charter and is
> presented for its adoption (and is not patent-encumbered), regardless
> of the source. However, any such proposal is subject to the CSSWG's
> review and evaluation, and the expectation is that it may be accepted,
> rejected, or adopted with the provision that it needs significant rework
> before being officially accepted.
> The MAY appears to give special consideration to work prepared in the
> WICG, and can be read (and has been read) as being a substitute for
> review and development within the context of the CSSWG.

Indeed, if it is being read that way it is problematic.

 From my point of view, anything produced by the CSSWG must have review 
and approval by CSSWG, including the responsibility to raise issues and 
modify draft specs as needed.  It is not the case that any proposal from 
WICG gets a free pass from appropriate scrutiny within CSS.

> ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 21:21:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 December 2016 21:21:38 UTC