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

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008-05-21

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:16 -0700
Message-ID: <4837615C.1060909@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>

Attendees:

   Mozilla                - David Baron
   W3C                    - Bert Bos
   Microsoft              - Arron Eicholz
   Invited Expert         - Elika Etemad
   Hewlett-Packard        - Ming Gao (scribe)
   Disruptive Innovations - Daniel Glazman (chair)
   Hewlett-Packard        - Melinda Grant (ghosting for HP using fantasai as a medium)
   Invited Expert         - Molly Holzschlag
   Microsoft              - Saloni Mira Rai
   Apple                  - David Singer
   Adobe                  - Steve Zilles

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

Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference
Date: 21 May 2008

Summary
-------

   Almost the entire meeting was a discussion of the module list that is
   not yet drafted for the charter. Several conflicting arguments were
   brought up. Here's an unordered summary of points in the discussion.

     - The criteria agreed upon for adding modules to the charter is
       significant implementation interest from at least two implementors
       and an advocate within the working group to drive spec editing.
     - An item must be in scope for the charter for us to work on it, because
       companies want to be aware of any potential patent commitments they
       must make by participating.
     - In the past the CSSWG has had a long list of modules in scope for
       the charter. Few of these make significant progress during the charter
       period.
     - W3C Management is unhappy that the CSSWG hasn't been completing all
       the work in its charter.
     - Adobe is particularly uncomfortable with keeping all the modules
       in the charter list right now and threatened to resign if they were
       all kept. Patent commitments were a cited concern. Another was that
       the WG can't finish everything on the proposed list in the 2-year
       charter period... (no explanation why this is itself a problem for
       Adobe outside the patent policy concern).
     - Bert points out that patent policy has several points of entry and
       exit, one of which is the charter, another of which is the publication
       of a an official public Working Draft.
     - The CSSWG charter is very precise about what is in scope. The scope
       can be argued to be broad by the number of modules, but it is not
       in any way ambiguous because all items proposed for the charter have
       a working draft already.
     - HP's representatives felt that items should not be cut from the charter
       in order to make the WG focus on high-priority items: that's the job
       the chairs should be doing. The high-priority items should be explicitly
       identified as what the WG plans to deliver, and the medium priority items
       should be in scope but explicitly listed as to be worked on as time and
       resources allow.
     - Things can be added to the charter by an amendment process. Adobe was
       advocating that only high-priority items be in the charter and others
       added as necessary via amendment.
     - Mozilla expressed concern that if lower-priority items are forced out
       of the charter they will be worked on elsewhere (e.g. in the WHATWG).
     - Apple wants to develop their proposed extensions through standardization
       discussions rather than by forging ahead on their own.
     - Molly expressed concern that items that don't make the charter won't
       appear to the public to be on the WG's radar. It was pointed out that
       the website has and will continue to have an exhaustive list.

   The main conflict here seems to be whether
     * items should be in scope of the charter if there is reasonable
       expectation of work being done on them, and charter amendment
       should be used only in unexpected circumstances
     * or items should be in scope of the charter only if there is a firm
       commitment to work on them at this time, and the amendment process
       should be used more commonly to add things in as they gain priority.

   The conclusion of the discussions was that the chairs should draft the
   module list section of the charter. Currently only the unedited summary
   of implementor feedback has been written:
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0033.html

   Opera was not represented in these discussions. They also have not sent
   in any comments previously.

   Resolved that Yahoo's rep can attend the next F2F as an observer.

Full minutes below.
===============================================================================

<dsinger> Dave Singer is on the call and IRC but will have to drop off
           around 9:30, sorry.

Charter
-------

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

   molly: a question: the charter need to be approved by CSS WG, and then
          put in place?
   dbaron: need to be approved by all W3C
   daniel: just a clarification: the charter is not being approved by CSS
           WG and has not gone to the W3C membership at large
   daniel: the charter has been submitted for three weeks, so assume most
           of WG members are ok
   daniel: no response from Apple or Opera, nothing from chaals
   daniel: assume the charter is ok with the above mentioned feedbacks
   daniel: 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 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
   daniel: interests vs commitment to deliver; impossible to confirm further
   steve: my concern is that part of the reason we make no progress, is
          working on too much things and nothing get done.
   steve: if so, I would vote against the charter;
   daniel: maybe a comprise is to restrict the deliverables to be the high
           priority list of the documents
   dsinger: make sure that we would have enough resource and dialogue and
            support would enable progress
   molly: how long is the charter in place?
   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.
   daniel: if a thing is not on the list, does not mean it is not in the scope
   fantasai: we can't have absolute list (or commitment); try our best.
   dbaron: my understanding is the opposite of what you said (daniel); we
           could work on it if interested; 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.
   steve: looking at the charter now.
   dbaron: a risk knocking off the charter of low priority list things, is
            discouraging people coming to the WG.
   molly: on the list and things FYI, both.
   dsinger: we commit to high priority items and willing to work on other
            low priority items.
   steve: we can't publish a working draft until getting director's approval
   steve: not sure what that means
   daniel: we can still make revision if needed; and submit new ideas to WG.
   daniel: Opera submitted the Media Query which was not on the list, as an
           example.
   steve: did you go to AC?
   daniel: not sure.

   steve: the problem I see is that we may go another two years without
          progress or deliverables
   <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.
   dbaron: it is something we never done before (i.e. adding new things to
           the charter via revisioning)

   steve: patent policy only went into the charter in the recently(?)
   steve: is it really realistic to add more things to the priority list?
   molly: if you remove the things from the charter or the list which is a
          public document, where people can find them again anywhere?
   molly: add'l (new) resource, won't take core resource away from items
          committed.
   daniel: using a feature(?) being implemented in Safari as an example.
   steve: don't see new people doing the work; see same people doing the work
   fantasai: leave them in to have an opportunity, while focusing WG resource
             working on the priority list
   fantasai: leave them in if they have a chance to release a working draft.
   molly: medium or low priority items do not have a deliverable, is that
          your concern, steve?
   daniel: AC voting on the charter with patent policy in mind. that is the key.
   molly: don't know necessarily what the deliverables are going to be

   Molly suggests making the lower-priority items informative.
   fantasai: It can't be informtive for the public. The charter needs to be
             normative, otherwise it won't be covered by the patent policy.
   steve: that is the catch of the patent policy.
   <dsinger> there is a pretty clear deliverable for our animations and
             transitions etc.
   <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
   daniel: 2. don't want to close the list of activities in WG
   daniel: compromise:
   daniel: having a list of deliverables, and willing to make revision if
           new deliverables to be added
   <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)?
   daniel: sounds beauratic (or sounds French)
   dsinger: for those having deliverables, put them into high, medium, low
            lists;
   dsinger: then cateogirze the things are interesting but no identified
            deliverables, into another group for discussion
   dsinger: when with working draft or deliverables identified, moving them
            into priority list then
   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 have a working draft, though some are
            old
   daniel: having working draft or willingness, but no time or resource to
           work on them
   daniel: this is about to getting a firm list of items into the charter.
   daniel: need to remove things from the list for now; if more things in
           scope, make a revision
   <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: this is the only way to go (forward)
   molly: ok, where can those things interesting reside somewhere public
          have access to?
   fantasai: the complete list is on the website
   daniel: see dsinger's IRC comment
   daniel: can't solve the issue now; you need to discuss this with your AC
           rep.
   daniel: think dsinger's comment make sense.
   <dsinger> we really don't want to 'foist' our animations and transitions
             on the industry as a fait accompli, without discussion at the w3c

   daniel: high priority list + medium p. list with active proponent and
           deliverable
   steve: all things on the list have active proponent and deliverable, so
          nothing drops.
   daniel: clear deliverable path (for medium item)
   <dsinger> dave regrets that his 9:30 appointment has arrived
   fantasai: commit high priority list and medium list is in scope
   <dsinger> I'l get back asap
   <Zakim> -dsinger

   steve: what does the patent policy say?
   steve: if issue, Adobe may not continue in WG
   daniel: in SD, we discuss to have a restricted list of priority items.
   daniel: we also say, items in medium or low priority list won't be in
           the charter.
   daniel: can't have a long list of priority items. otherwise, would be
           the same as before.
   daniel: 2nd issue, is patent policy
   fantasai: what items should be dropped, from Adobe point of view?
   steve: should focus on high priority list only
   steve: need to ask lawyer (patent policy)
   bert: you only commit to those that are published
   daniel: if we add items w/o high priority list, once it publishes,
           patent policy apply
   steve: what happens when all our discussions and drafts are public?
   fantasai: the official Working Draft on the TR page, would trigger
             the patent policy clocks
   steve: for Chair to realistically go through the list and what can be
          accomplished in this time period. Nothing was accomplished in
          this last period.
   fantasai: even in the last period, there are things gets published.

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

   <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.

   daniel: Chair to 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

   <dbaron> can you not hear me?
   <Zakim> +dsinger
   dbaron: 1. drop medium list item would force work outside CSS WG
   dbaron: 2. concern about the process
   dbaron: submit a short list for high priority list; though doing so,
           I lost influence
   steve: did the same way
   danie: 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 dbaron's #1 point.

   fantasai: should rely on Chair to keep us on the high priority list
   fantasai: rather than using charter to do so
   daniel: in theory, yes; but, concern about patent
   daniel: this is different than how we operate before
   fantasai: can we talk to the lawyer as what are concerning the
             lawyers on patent?
   steve: suggest chairs to discuss and drop things from the list
   daniel: peter, me will work together with help of Bert.

Background-size Issue
---------------------

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

Yahoo Observer
--------------

   Topic: any objection for Yahoo rep to join next f-t-f meeting?
   no objection
   Molly: Alex does not have a problem.
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 00:29:57 GMT

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