Draft minutes: 7 May 2013 call

The draft minutes from the May 7 voice conference are available at 
<http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc> and copied below.

(RRAgent, didn't create the "normal" minutes so these minutes are a 
pretty-printed IRC log for the first 28 mins and then a copy from my 
Adium log.)

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before May 14. In the 
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.

-Thanks, ArtB

  IRC log of pointerevents on 2013-05-07

/Timestamps are in UTC./

15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
    RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
    logging tohttp://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-pointerevents-irc
15:00:13 [ArtB]
    ScribeNick: ArtB
15:00:13 [ArtB]
    Scribe: Art
15:00:13 [ArtB]
15:00:13 [ArtB]
    Chair: Art
15:00:13 [ArtB]
    Meeting: Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
15:00:23 [ArtB]
    RRSAgent, make log Public
15:00:28 [ArtB]
    RRSAgent, make minutes
15:00:28 [RRSAgent]
    I have made the request to
15:00:55 [ArtB]
    Regrets: Rick_Byers
15:01:13 [Zakim]
    RWC_PEWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [Zakim]
15:01:51 [jrossi2]
    Art: I'm muted hang on...
15:02:23 [Zakim]
15:03:57 [ArtB]
    Present: Art_Barstow, Jacob_Rossi, Asir_Vedamuthu
15:04:11 [Zakim]
    + +1.717.578.aaaa
15:04:23 [ArtB]
    Present+ Scott_Gonzαlez
15:04:29 [scott_gonzalez]
    Zakim, aaaa is me
15:04:29 [Zakim]
    +scott_gonzalez; got it
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:04:50 [ArtB]
    Present+ Matt_Brubeck
15:04:52 [Zakim]
15:05:00 [ArtB]
    Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:05:21 [ArtB]
    Topic: Getting started
15:05:26 [ArtB]
    AB: I posted a draft agenda
15:05:32 [ArtB]
    AB: since Rick sent regrets for today, I propose we drop item #3 in
    the draft ("Impact of pointer capture on pointerover/pointerout
    events") and replace it with a short discussion about tracking
    comments during Candidate Recommendation. Any objections to that?
15:06:03 [ArtB]
    [ none ]
15:06:04 [ArtB]
    AB: any other change requests?
15:06:12 [ArtB]
    [ none ]
15:06:19 [ArtB]
    Topic: Developers confuse the original MS PE submission for the
    current spec
15:06:28 [ArtB]
    AB: Rick Byers started this
15:06:34 [ArtB]
    AB: I believe Doug agreed to work with Jacob to take care of this.
    Is that correct Doug?
15:07:01 [ArtB]
    JR: the action is on me to provide an updated doc via Michael Champion
15:07:18 [ArtB]
    … one open question is can we update the existing Submission or not
15:07:26 [ArtB]
    … and just add a link to the group's spec
15:07:49 [ArtB]
    ACTION: jacob work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE Member
15:07:49 [trackbot]
    Created ACTION-41 - Work with Microsoft's AC rep on updating the PE
    Member Submission [on Jacob Rossi - due 2013-05-14].
15:08:16 [ArtB]
    Topic: Tracking Comments during Candidate Recommendation
15:08:22 [ArtB]
    AB: since the time we agreed to publish a CR, a few comments have
    been submitted and we should consider them CR comments.
15:08:33 [ArtB]
    AB: regardless of the state of the spec, the group is always
    obligated to reply all comments.
15:08:51 [ArtB]
    … and we've done a great job of that already
15:08:58 [ArtB]
    AB: during CR, I don't think we are _required_ to create a
    Disposition of Comments like we did for LC but we need to be
    diligent to address all comments, in some form.
15:09:32 [ArtB]
    JR: I think it would be helpful to be more diligent on Issues
15:09:40 [asir]
    asir has joined #pointerevents
15:09:46 [ArtB]
    … helpful to look at issues and Bugzilla
15:09:54 [ArtB]
    … nice to look at the issues that were raised
15:10:35 [ArtB]
    AB: so, do we want to create a bug if the spec changes as a result
    of a comment?
15:10:39 [ArtB]
    JR: yes
15:11:12 [ArtB]
    AV: if we create a CR target on Mozilla, it make it easy to target
    bugs against the CR
15:11:30 [ArtB]
    AB: do we need to create some type of label?
15:11:38 [ArtB]
    AV: there is a field for tracking docs
15:11:48 [asir]
15:11:52 [ArtB]
    … perhaps Doug know about how to do that with Mozilla?
15:12:04 [ArtB]
    DS: I haven't used it for that purpose
15:12:05 [asir]
15:12:12 [ArtB]
    JR: I think we need to add versions
15:12:31 [ArtB]
    ACTION: barstow get a "CR" version created for the Pointer Events CR
15:12:31 [trackbot]
    Created ACTION-42 - Get a "CR" version created for the Pointer
    Events CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-05-14].
15:13:12 [ArtB]
    DRAFT RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that
    result in spec changes
15:13:21 [ArtB]
    AB: any comments on that Draft?
15:13:27 [ArtB]
    RESOLUTION: we will use Bugzilla to track CR comments that result in
    spec changes
15:14:00 [ArtB]
    AB: anything else re admin tasks for CR, Doug?
15:14:11 [ArtB]
    DS: no, I don't think so
15:14:32 [ArtB]
    … we need to do Impl Report and Tests and we already know about that
15:14:41 [ArtB]
    … we haven't marked anything "At Risk"
15:14:48 [ArtB]
    … we've already talked about v2
15:14:56 [ArtB]
    … so I think things our "pretty standard"
15:15:14 [ArtB]
    JR: that all sounds right
15:15:19 [ArtB]
    Topic: pointermove dispatching when button state changes
15:15:29 [ArtB]
    AB: Scott started this
15:15:56 [ArtB]
    SG: seems unclear there is no move when a button is clicked
15:16:11 [ArtB]
    JR: yeah, I think the sentence in ptrmove is ambiguous
15:16:25 [ArtB]
    … need to take care of the case where there is no up or down event
15:16:37 [ArtB]
    SG: should we just add a sentence that adds the exception?
15:16:41 [ArtB]
    JR: yes
15:16:58 [ArtB]
    SG: if move cause down, need to clarify
15:17:04 [ArtB]
    JR: yes, I can make that change
15:17:22 [ArtB]
    AB: so, you'll create a bug for this Jacob?
15:17:26 [ArtB]
    JR: yes, I'll do that
15:17:38 [ArtB]
    Topic: MSPointer implementation only dispatches mousemove when hovering
15:17:43 [ArtB]
    AB: Scott started this
15:18:07 [ArtB]
    AB: it appears to identify a bug in IE
15:18:14 [ArtB]
    JR: yes, it's a bug
15:18:41 [ArtB]
    … we still fire the hover event
15:18:47 [ArtB]
    … expect to align with the spec
15:18:55 [ArtB]
    SG: agree, we don't need to discuss here
15:19:01 [asir]
    zakim, [microsoft] is me
15:19:01 [Zakim]
    +asir; got it
15:19:12 [ArtB]
    AB: any need for spec tightening?
15:19:16 [ArtB]
    SG: no, I don't think so
15:19:41 [ArtB]
    … I was looking for clarification (they have a hover event which is
    not in the spec)
15:19:53 [ArtB]
    Topic: Testing
15:20:00 [ArtB]
    AB: CfC to move tests to
15:20:30 [ArtB]
    SG: I have a question about the GH repo
15:20:45 [ArtB]
    … there is a PR from Nokia
15:20:46 [jrossi2]
    regarding pointermove and property
15:20:53 [ArtB]
    … not sure about the status of that
15:21:16 [ArtB]
    … What is the process for review, merge, etc.?
15:21:23 [ArtB]
    … Not sure how this PR is handled?
15:21:51 [ArtB]
    AB: those are all good questions Scott
15:21:59 [ArtB]
    … we need to define our workflow
15:22:06 [ArtB]
    … including, who is going to do what
15:22:34 [ArtB]
    … would like to hear from Matt
15:22:42 [ArtB]
    MB: I need to do some homework
15:22:47 [ArtB]
    … re W3C's GH repo
15:22:55 [ArtB]
    … I can read up on that
15:23:04 [asir]
15:23:04 [ArtB]
    … I expect submissions are PRs
15:23:18 [ArtB]
    … comments can be made on the list or in the PRs
15:23:30 [ArtB]
    JR: work with MikeSmith and Robin re permissions
15:23:44 [ArtB]
    … I think you want to get setup with perms
15:23:51 [ArtB]
    MB: yes, I'll do that
15:24:00 [ArtB]
    SG: with Hg, there was submissions
15:24:13 [ArtB]
    … and with GH, that doesn't appear to be used
15:24:25 [ArtB]
    JR: with GH, branches are used instead of submissions
15:24:43 [ArtB]
    SG: so, there is no submissions directory on GH
15:24:56 [ArtB]
    JR: yes, I think so but Matt can help us figure this out
15:25:14 [ArtB]
    AV: after someone submits, there should be some review but approval
15:25:31 [ArtB]
    … need to separate WG's workflow from GH's workflow
15:25:41 [ArtB]
    SG: I agree, PRs can serve as submissions
15:25:44 [mbrubeck]
15:26:16 [asir]
    where PR = Pull Request
15:27:40 [ArtB]
    AB: need to figure out how to watch for just pointerevents changes
15:27:49 [ArtB]
    SG: don't think that can be done directly with GH
15:28:04 [ArtB]
    … will get notifications for all PRs to webplatform-tests

= Adium Log ...

11:28:53 AM ArtB: AB: here is Rebecca's doc 
11:29:12 AM ArtB: … WebApps and HTML WGs will use as a guide
11:29:27 AM ArtB: … and we should use it too unless we really have some 
specific constraints or reqs
11:30:11 AM ArtB: AB: Asir mentioned we want to agree on review and 
approval process
11:30:44 AM ArtB: AV: this doc has a section on Submit that mentions 
specific WG processes
11:31:12 AM ArtB: JR: this doc doesn't really address how the WG does 
its reviews and approvals
11:31:20 AM ArtB: … that is left to the WG to define
11:31:33 AM ArtB: AV: yes, that is correct
11:31:57 AM ArtB: JR: the undefined steps are accepting the PR and 
merging into the master
11:32:03 AM ArtB: … we can define that ourselves
11:32:15 AM ArtB: … but we should learn from what other groups are doing
11:32:23 AM ArtB: AB: that makes perfect sense to me
11:32:37 AM ArtB: JR: Matt, can you take an action on this?
11:33:04 AM ArtB: ACTION: matt make a proposal re how to accept Pull 
Requests and merge them to the master
11:33:05 AM trackbot: *is creating a new ACTION.*
11:33:05 AM RRSAgent: *records action 3*
11:33:05 AM trackbot: Created ACTION-43 - Make a proposal re how to 
accept Pull Requests and merge them to the master [on Matt Brubeck - due 
11:33:35 AM ArtB: AB: one thing I wanted to mention is ATT tests 
11:33:52 AM ArtB: … and I think DaveM from jQuery has done some work too
11:34:16 AM ArtB: AB: Scott will you submit a PR for your HG submission?
11:34:20 AM ArtB: SG: yes, I'll do that
11:34:36 AM ArtB: … and I'll work with DaveM to get his PR to 
pointerevents repo
11:34:56 AM ArtB: AB: anything else on testing?
11:35:09 AM ArtB: JR: I don't see AT&T listed as a WG member
11:35:23 AM ArtB: … do they need to be a member of the group to submit 
11:35:34 AM ArtB: DS: there are various ways to handle this
11:35:42 AM ArtB: … indeed being a WG member is easiest
11:35:48 AM ArtB: … but anyone can submit a test
11:35:59 AM ArtB: JR: oh, yeah, there is form for that right?
11:36:01 AM ArtB: DS: yes
11:36:18 AM ArtB: JR: I recall TTWF participants had to sign that form
11:36:26 AM ArtB: AB: ok, so we should be fine then
11:36:30 AM ArtB: JR: yes, I think so
11:36:47 AM ArtB: Topic: Any other Business
11:36:52 AM ArtB: AB: Director approved the publication of a Pointer 
Events Candidate Recommendation and that CR should be published on May 9
11:37:37 AM asir: Congratulations to the WG!!
11:38:38 AM ArtB: AB: F2F meeting @ TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, China Nov 
I've heard some support. Any comments, feedback, concerns, etc.?
mbrubeck left the room (quit: Client closed connection). (11:39:02 AM)
mbrubeck [~mbrub_000@public.cloak] entered the room. (11:39:44 AM)
11:40:42 AM ArtB: AV: if we were to meet, what would we do?
11:40:53 AM ArtB: … re the agenda and goal?
11:40:59 AM ArtB: AB: good question
11:41:29 AM ArtB: AV: I think it would be good to meet
11:41:37 AM ArtB: … but not sure we want to wait until November
11:41:49 AM ArtB: … e.g. get together for interop and testing work
11:42:01 AM ArtB: DS: we could meet in China e.g. to discuss things about v2
11:43:14 AM ArtB: AB: I don't feel strongly either way
11:43:34 AM ArtB: AV: so if this is about securing a spot, maybe we can 
think about this as tentative
11:43:55 AM ArtB: DS: yes, there is a bit of that
11:44:21 AM ArtB: AB: based on what I know now, I don't think we will 
have a need to meet
11:44:44 AM ArtB: DS: if we think we will need to talk to other groups, 
then meeting at TPAC can be useful
11:45:01 AM ArtB: … and do we anticipate that need 6 months from now?
11:45:15 AM ArtB: … groups that we depend on or groups that depend on us
11:45:30 AM ArtB: … There is some serendipity that happens too at TPAC
11:45:40 AM ArtB: … The Web Events is one group
11:45:46 AM ArtB: … but we can contact them other ways
11:45:56 AM ArtB: … The Indie UI WG is another potential group
11:46:10 AM ArtB: … and I don't know about the usefulness of meeting 
with them
11:47:02 AM ArtB: … Another reason to meet is if we can discuss topics 
with people f2f
11:47:12 AM ArtB: … e.g. manufactures of touch devices
11:47:37 AM ArtB: DS: so I leave it up to the group
11:47:47 AM ArtB: AV: are such mfgs members of W3C?
11:48:04 AM ArtB: DS: not sure but some type of "expo day" could be useful
11:48:15 AM ArtB: … and we could do that via a presentation e.g. @ TPAC slot
11:49:25 AM ArtB: AB: I propose we don't meet and take advantage of the 
TP meeting to do a demo about the PE spec
11:49:30 AM ArtB: MB: sounds good to me
11:49:37 AM ArtB: AV: sounds good to me too
11:49:59 AM ArtB: JR: sounds reasonable; it's just too far in advance
11:50:15 AM ArtB: SG: it's hard to say if there will be a good reason to 
11:50:27 AM ArtB: … but six months out is too far away
11:50:43 AM ArtB: JR: and as Doug said, if we find a need to meet 
earlier, we can do so
11:50:49 AM ArtB: AV: yes, good idea
11:51:10 AM ArtB: RESOLUTION: the Pointer Events WG will not meet f2f at 
the TPAC 2013
11:51:26 AM ArtB: AB: any implementation new or status?
11:51:46 AM ArtB: s/new or/news or/
11:52:01 AM jrossi2: New polyfill: http://rich-harris.github.io/Points/

12:06:14 PM ArtB: AB: re next meeting, we'll have a call when there are 
sufficient topics
12:06:22 PM ArtB: … Meeting Adjourned

[feedly mini]

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 16:45:30 UTC