W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2008

CSS WG weekly meeting minutes 2008-05-21

From: Gao, Ming (ICS Industry Alliance, San Diego) <ming.gao@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:22:17 +0000
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <93703EDD1F125544A59BD25384B175621F49F23072@G1W0485.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Weekly Teleconference

Date: May 21, 2008
Time: 09:06am to 9:59am PDT

Attendees:
David Baron
Bert Bos
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Ming Gao
Daniel Glazman
Molly Holzschlag
Saloni Mira Rai
David Singer
Steve Zilles

Official regrets:
Peter Linss
Alex Mogilevsky
Jason Cranford Teague

Late regrets:
David Hyatt


Scriber: Ming Gao

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-css-irc


Topic: Charter
--------------
daniel: got comments from David B. mainly about not having module list
... some add'l comments from the mailing list
... Alex (MS) think the charter is ok
... need Chris Lilley in the loop
... any other comments from CSS WG?

molly: a question about the process: the charter need to be approved by CSS WG, and  then put in place?
david B: the charter needs to be approved by all W3C members
daniel: just a clarification: the charter is not yet approved by CSS WG and has not gone to the W3C membership at large
... the charter has been submitted for three weeks, so assume most of WG members are ok
... no response from Apple or Opera, nothing from Charles(?)
... assume the charter is ok after incorporating the above mentioned feedbacks
... if any issue, say it now

<Bert> The only official (required) part of the charter process is the review by the  W3C members, but the better we prepare the charter in the WG, the more likely it is to  pass the W3C membership...
<dsinger> I am checking with my apple colleagues (team leaders)...

steve Z.: what does the prioritization mean? I am a bit confused.
daniel: members of WG express their interest but no one would tell the reasonable timeframe for implementation
... interests vs commitment to deliver; impossible to confirm further

steve: my concern is that part of the reason we had made no progress (in the past), is that
... WG is working on too much things and nothing get done.
... if so, I would vote against the charter;

daniel: maybe a compromise is to restrict the deliverables to be the high priority list of items
david S.: make sure that we would have enough resource, sufficient dialogue and support; that would enable progress

molly: how long will the charter be in place for?
steve: two years
molly: every things on the priority list would be done in two years? right?

steve: if things change, then do a charter revision (to reflect that).
daniel: if a thing is not on the list, this does not mean that it is not in the scope of WG
fantasai: we can't have an absolutely committed list; would try our best.
david B.: my understanding is the opposite of what you said (daniel); we could work on it if
... interested; and people won't make patent on these things we are interested to work on;
<dsinger> I would like to be very clear whether the charter is a priority list (and other things can be worked on) or whether it is an exhaustive list (and, to be worked on, something must be on the charter). I thought I had previously heard the second.

david b: a risk knocking off the charter of low priority list things, is discouraging people coming to the WG.
molly: so to include things on the list and things FYI, both.
david s: we should commit to high priority items and willing to work on other low priority items.

steve: looking at the charter now.
steve: (according to the charter), we can't publish a working draft until getting director's approval
... not sure what that means

daniel: we can still make revision (of WG charter) when needed; and submit new ideas to WG.
david b: it is something we never done before (i.e. adding new things to the charter  via revisioning)

daniel: e.g., Opera submitted the Medai Query which was not on the list.
steve: did you go to AC for that?
daniel: laughter ...; not sure.

steve: the problem I see is that we may go through another two years without progress or deliverables
steve: patent policy only went into the charter recently
... is it really realistic to add more things to the priority list of the WG charter?

molly: if you remove the things from the charter or the list which is a public  document, where can people find them again anywhere?
... I think those (not high priority items) will rely on add'l (new) resource, so won't take core resource away from items committed.
steve: don't see new people doing the work; see the same people doing the work
fantasai: leave them in to have an opportunity, while focusing WG resource working on the priority list;
... leave them in if they have a chance to release a working draft.

molly: medium or low priority items do not have a deliverable today.  Is that your concern, steve?
molly: we don't know necessarily what the deliverables are going to be yet.
daniel: AC will vote on the charter with patent policy in mind. that is the key concern.

fantasai: can't be informtive for the public; need to be normative in the charter.
steve: that is the catch of the patent policy.
<fantasai> steve, can you put a pointer to the part of the patent policy that requires explicit deliverables?

daniel: to summarize steve's position:
daniel: 1. need to have deliverables
... 2. don't want to close the list of activities in WG
... compromise:
... having a list of deliverables, and willing to make revision if new deliverables are to be added
daniel: sounds bureaucratic (or sounds French)
... laughters ...

<dsinger> I would be unhappy to see all mention of the medium and low-priority items removed from the charter; we do have items there that we think can be progressed with reasonable support, and we don't want to be told that there isn't time for them because they are not on the charter.
<dsinger> there is a pretty clear deliverable for our animations and transitions etc.
<dsinger> can we split the list into items with deliverables defined (sub-divided hi, medium, low) and a list of discussion areas (those without a deliverable yet defined)?

david S.: for those having deliverables, put them into high, medium, low lists;
david S.: then categorize the things that are interesting but with no identified deliverables, into another group for discussion
david S.: Once with working draft or deliverables identified, then moving them into priority list
<dsinger> I would take the high-priority list, and those of the medium-priority list that have both (a) an active proponent and (b) a clear deliverable.

daniel: AC would perceive CSS WG not effective, still having a too long list and nothing to deliver
fantasai: most of things on the list, having a working draft, though old; question is what to do with them.
daniel: having working draft or willingness, but no time or resource to work on them
... The goal is about to getting a firm list of items into the charter.
... need to remove things from the list for now; if more things in scope, make a revision of the charter
daniel: this is the only way to go (forward)
molly: ok, where can those things interesting reside somewhere public have access to?

daniel: all, please see David S.'s IRC comment
... can't solve this issue now; you need to discuss this with your AC rep.
... think David S.'s comment make sense.

daniel: high priority list + medium p. list with active proponent and deliverable
daniel: clear deliverable path (for medium item)
steve: but all things on the list have active proponent and deliverable, so in the end, nothing gets dropped.

<dsinger> we really don't want to 'foist' our animations and transitions on the industry as a fait accompli, without discussion at the w3c
<dsinger> dave regrets that his 9:30 appointment has arrived
<dsinger> I'l get back asap

fantasai: commit high priority list and medium list is in scope
steve: what does the patent policy say?
... if issue exist, Adobe may not continue in WG

daniel: in SD, we discuss to have a restricted list of priority items.
... we also say, items in medium or low priority list won't be in the charter.
... can't have a long list of priority items. otherwise, would be the same as before.
... 2nd issue, is patent policy

fantasai: steve, what items should be droped, from Adobe point of view?
steve: we think WG should focus on high priority list only
... need to ask lawyer (regarding patent policy)

bert: you only commit to those that are published
daniel: if we add items not on high priority list, once it publishes, then patent policy apply
steve: but the operating process has since changed.
fantasai: the first time on the TR page, would kick off the patent policy

steve: would recommend for Chairs to realistically go through the list and assess what can be  accomplished in this time period
fantasai: even in the last period (of CSS WG), there were things gets published.

molly: we want to be able to have others to hear what the other things are interesting  to work on (i.e. in scope)
steve: agree so don't remove anything published on the WG website
... not against on charter revisioning

daniel: let Chairs discuss with members, and make a proposal to WG
steve: draft section 2.2 and come back to WG
daniel: yes, draft it asap and need WG to comment on immediately

daniel: next topic: background-size, for 5 minutes?
fantasai: prefer people to read the issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- style/2008May/0178.html

daniel: any objection for Yahoo rep to join next f-t-f meeting?
no objection
molly: Alex does not have a problem with this.

<dbaron> I can't seem to get a word in... but I think dropping a bunch of the items on the medium priority list off the charter will just force people to work on them outside of the CSS WG.
<dbaron> I'm also worried that the current modules list is biased because the implementor feedback wasn't normalized, so implementors who put more specs in the  "strong interest" category had more influence on the list.
<dbaron> can you not hear me?
david b: 1. drop medium list item would force work outside CSS WG
david b: 2. concern about the process
david b: I had submitted a short list for high priority list; though doing so, I lost  influence
steve: I did the same way (i.e. submitted a short high priority list)
daniel: most people, submit high priority list of 5 items or less
daniel: most people submitted, short list of H.P., long list of M.P., short list of no  interest

molly: agree with david b's #1 point.

fantasai: will rely on Chairs to keep us on the high priority list
... rather than using charter to do so
daniel: in theory, yes; but, concern about patent policy
... this is different than how we operated before
fantasai: can we talk to the lawyers as what concerns them wrt patent policy?

steve: suggest chairs to discuss and drop things from the list
daniel: peter and me will work together with the help of Bert.
daniel: will get back to you asap
daniel: meeting adjourn


original minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-css-minutes.html
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 00:24:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT