W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Can we get consensus on what incubation means (was: Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:56:10 -0500
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5d0e71da-45af-8902-7718-56ffa4ba1369@inkedblade.net>
On 01/09/2017 11:38 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting that browsers merely notify us unilateraly that they are about to ship something, which is sort of what happens now when they let us know *at the end* of their "intent to ship" process. Rather, I'd like them to notify us that they are *considering* shipping something. The blink intent to ship process includes a mandatory step about evaluating whether shipping the feature would lead to compat / interop / standardization / future evolution difficulties. The CSSWG should be in the loop when that happens. This would be a way to trigger the discussion (which our documented practices allow for but rarely happens) in the WG about whether it is appropriate.
>
> If the WG decides against shipping, hopefully we'll have reasons, and a reasonable vendor may follow our recommendation and invest in plugging the gaps in the spec first. If the vendor disagrees with the reasons, they are of course able to just ignore the WG and ship anyway, but that's the case under any possible process, since the W3C does not have authority over vendors.
>
> Making it a systematic practice for vendors to get in touch with the WG when they are considering implementing or shipping something would help with prioritization, status flagging (see above), and avoiding accidental shipping of stuff that's not ready.

100% Agreed.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:29:22 UTC