- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:00:51 -0500
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY9CcN0AYFXFf0bXGaMBYOxw5jAvbFL_u4PP-t=aW066Vg@mail.gmail.com>
I assume we're not meeting today then? Is there anyone else who's feedback we're blocked on? On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: > Just saw this. We can schedule for next week – or if no one has feedback > on the proposal, perhaps we don’t need to meet and can just start the > review process? > > > > Sent from Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > > *From: *Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> > *Sent: *Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:06 AM > *To: *Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> > *Cc: *public-pointer-events@w3.org > *Subject: *Re: Pointer Events Charter? > > > > I'm available today too, but probably too late for the west coasters? > > On Jan 12, 2016 3:57 AM, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote: > > FWIW I'm available for a call today if needed, but in principle I agree > with the changes that Jacob made in the PR. > > P > > On 12/01/2016 03:28, Doug Schepers wrote: > > Hi, Jacob– > > It doesn't seem like the call was scheduled for tomorrow. Should we try > anyway, or should we be more proactive for next week? > > Regards– > –Doug > > On 1/5/16 12:13 AM, Jacob Rossi wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > Thanks for sending (beat me to it!). Since we're producing editor's > drafts of the Pointer Events L2 spec and have consensus that the > group wants to eventually publish that as a Recommendation, we agree > that the next step is to recharter the Pointer Events WG. > > I've submitted a PR to your charter draft that provides our suggested > changes [1]. To summarize: > > * For the Scope intro, I've used similar text to the previous PEWG > charter. - I've added specific example features we intend to pursue > for 2.0 that weren't in 1.0. These are meant to be examples and not a > commitment nor an exhaustive list. * For Out of Scope, I have copied > the same scope as the previous PEWG charter. * Pointer Events 2.0 > deliverable - I've removed the language about building on the Touch > Events specification. I don't believe it's a goal for the PE 2.0 > deliverable to incorporate any Touch Events features. * Added Github > as a forum for technical discussion and communication * Added Touch > Events Community Group as a point of coordination for the PEWG given > the related technology > > Shall we schedule a call next week to discuss next steps for > rechartering? > > -Jacob > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/10 > > -----Original Message----- From: Doug Schepers > [mailto:schepers@w3.org] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 8:19 PM To: > public-pointer-events@w3.org; Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>; Jacob > Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>; Art Barstow > <art.barstow@gmail.com> Subject: Pointer Events Charter? > > Hi, folks– > > As you know, the Pointer Events WG charter expired on 9 November > 2015, so there is currently no formal WG; this isn't really a problem > until we want to publish something, but it does tend to detract from > a sense of urgency and momentum. > > During the last Pointer Events / Touch Events telcon [1], on 3 > November, the conclusion was that we did indeed want to recharter the > Pointer Events WG (or some new WG that continues the work of Pointer > Events and Touch Events). > > I've drafted a very rough charter, and I need your concrete feedback > on what the charter should say, what work is in scope, and what > deliverables (i.e. specs) should be listed. > > We sent out early notice to the AC that this rechartering was going > on, but it seems to have stalled out. The next step is to finalize > the charter, and put it out for AC review. > > I haven't yet received any feedback on the new charter, or > suggestions on what it should say; it's not yet ready for AC review, > and it won't be until I get this crucial feedback. > > Do we still want to re-form the Pointer Events WG, or are we still in > a holding pattern in the Community Group. > > Please advise me on what you'd like to do at this point. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-pointerevents-minutes.html#item06 > [2] http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/pointer-events-2015.html > > Regards– –Doug > > > > > > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 16:01:43 UTC