- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:55:32 +0100
- To: "'John Foliot'" <john.foliot@deque.com>, "'Travis Leithead'" <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "'Geoffrey Sneddon'" <me@gsnedders.com>
- Cc: "'Chaals McCathie Nevile'" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'White, Jason J'" <jjwhite@ets.org>, "'Alastair Campbell'" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
> From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] > Sent: 19 April 2016 16:26 > > From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com] > > Sent: 19 April 2016 15:44 > > > I don't want this to sound like I'm trying to shut down this thread > > > (I'm not), but this sounds like a great idea to put through the WICG > > > incubation process. > > Sorry, I totally disagree (a huge -1) > > Despite all the best intentions in the world, the WICG is a moribund and non- > functioning Community Group (as are roughly 90% of the Community Groups > in existence). A quick check of that CG's mailing list Archives surfaces exactly > *2* emails, dating from July of 2015. > Most WICG discussion happens on Discourse [1], where there have been about 60 messages since the start of this month. Discourse is listed among the tools used by WICG in their charter [2], though the preference for Discourse could arguably be made more obvious (one to take up with WICG if you think so). > Is there a particular reason why this discussion *can't* continue to happen > where it started? The WP work mode for HTML is to incubate new ideas before they're migrated onto the Recc track. We want to be sure that new ideas have definition, as well as support from authors and implementors, before they morph into new HTML modules. Léonie [1] https://discourse.wicg.io/ [2] https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/ -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem.
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 15:56:33 UTC