W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > May 2013

Re: CSS or bust???

From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:12:55 +0100
Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, public-webplatform@w3.org
Message-Id: <5A8B5114-61D6-4C5D-9E5D-0D91793AA6C5@w3.org>
To: Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>
I'm getting to it! Did a whole load of CSS property page example writing, reviews and edits yesterday, and doing more today.

I'll have a look at the projects I'm assigned to as well.

Chris Mills
Opera Software, dev.opera.com
W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)

On 1 May 2013, at 16:19, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone:
> 
> There's a recurring theme here that we should:
> 
> * Assess the state of the project and further refining what we deliver for
> Beta.
> * Make sure we have folks working toward those deliverables.
> 
> For assessing the project, all the leads of the project teams need to take
> ownership of their project on project.* and make sure it reflects what
> needs to be done for beta. Also, we should prioritize tuning the bug genie
> to ensure project.* helps us manage and report progress.
> 
> For getting people on deliverables, it's great to remind folks of what's
> priority. But let's avoid shuffling people around too much. Again: leads
> refine what we want to accomplish and estimate the effort for each
> project. Then, before we ask people to move from one task to another,
> we'll be better able to assess what the sacrifice is and how it will
> impact Beta, overall. Let's not get into the cycle of depleting one
> project to make us feel better temporarily about another one, when we
> probably should be focusing more on recruiting and on-board additional
> contributors.
> 
> So, leads: get on WPD:Project_Status and the bug genie. And let's not "rob
> Peter to pay Paul" if we we haven't even talked with Mary yet. ;-)
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Julee
> 
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 1:37 AM
> To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
> Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org"
> <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: CSS or bust???
> Resent-From: <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 1:38 AM
> 
>> Sounds right on the mark to me, Scott, and thanks to Eliot for originally
>> bring this up.
>> 
>> I feel a bit guilty about branching out and starting on the beginner's
>> material, but I was just finding it so hard to get my head around
>> organizing a group to conquer the CSS properties docs, that the
>> beginner's docs felt like a small chunk of content that I could just own
>> and bring to fruition easily, for some easy impact to draw more people to
>> our site.
>> 
>> But I guess we need reigning in a bit, and being made to align more so we
>> can make beta some kind of success. A few questions/points:
>> 
>> 1. I did start a list of beta criteria a while ago: I'm assuming this is
>> being look at/utilised?
>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Projects/Beta_Requirements
>> 2. What happened to the idea of us getting a project manager? Feels like
>> we need it really badly.
>> 3. Did anyone contact any CSS WG types and well-known designers to look
>> at some of our more complete CSS property pages and say what they think
>> is needed to make them truly good? I was going to do this work, but then
>> got busy on a couple of weeks of travelling, and someone said they'd
>> start this work off in my absence.
>> 4. Where are we with dabblet? Can we embed examples yet?
>> 
>> I am happy to start working up some more CSS property pages now, as long
>> as I know we are all moving in the same direction.
>> 
>> Chris Mills
>> Opera Software, dev.opera.com
>> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
>> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
>> 
>> On 30 Apr 2013, at 22:19, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Eliot!
>>> 
>>> Yes, your concerns are right on the mark, and in the Community
>>> Development Task Force meeting today, we considered exactly the same
>>> questions. We resolved to provide a clearer definition of our beta
>>> criteria, which Doug and Julee began working on. We considered where our
>>> resources are currently allocated, we considered new ways to work with
>>> and guide our current resources, and we considered avenues for
>>> recruiting new resources.
>>> 
>>> These are in the meeting notes that I'll send around here in a bit.
>>> 
>>> This is it in a nutshell: beta is a progress report and a call to
>>> action for more support. To show progress, we're keen to demonstrate
>>> content that is complete and ready to use (CSS properties and HTML5
>>> APIs), we'll have established a content architecture, and we'll describe
>>> all of the great work that our dedicated volunteers and stewards have
>>> performed over the past (now six) months. To call for more support,
>>> we'll define "gold standards" for content that is not yet complete and
>>> have more cogent processes for contributing (including more interaction
>>> with content leaders); we'll also have clearer, more actionable flags
>>> and a UI that more successfully guides people to contribute.
>>> 
>>> So, while alpha was an exploratory phase of WPD, with very little
>>> defined in terms of resources, processess, and tools - let alone content
>>> and content architecture, beta is the proof of concept and the point
>>> where we announce that we are ready to scale our efforts to the wider
>>> community.
>>> 
>>> Such was my interpretation, but I shall defer to my colleagues. Doug,
>>> Julee, et al.: have I got this right?
>>> 
>>> ~Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Eliot Graff
>>> <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All.
>>> 
>>> [[Before I ask these questions, I want to say that I am as guilty of
>>> contributing to this as anyone, having recently introduced the 400+
>>> JavaScript pages in to the mix.]]
>>> 
>>> Are we really placing our energies in the right places? Are we working
>>> on the right things? Or are we losing focus?
>>> 
>>> I thoroughly understand that there are a _many_ important and wonderful
>>> aspects of WPD that we could be creating, enhancing, and building, but I
>>> think we may be drifting from our original decisions (and if not, this
>>> will serve as a verification of our course of action). I was under the
>>> impression that we determined that we would identify and work on one
>>> section of WPD at a time to get that area up to what we considered "beta
>>> content", and that we were going to do that starting with the CSS
>>> properties. We're not anywhere near complete on those, are we? If we
>>> are, I apologize, and carry on. But I look at the CSS Properties
>>> spreadsheet [1] and I see a ton of work left to go. Yet, over the past
>>> couple of weeks, we are all (myself included) very eager to start work
>>> on JavaScript reference, Beginner's Guide, DOM, and other large projects
>>> (I'm sorry to pick on these in particular).
>>> 
>>> My call to this community is this: We should validate that our
>>> priorities are sound (from time to time) and strive to stay focused on
>>> our highest priority items prior to embarking on new work. In short, we
>>> need to hold ourselves accountable to our goals. Certainly, this is true
>>> while our community is still small but growing. Maybe later, when we're
>>> a robust and enormous group, we can have the luxury of being less
>>> strident.
>>> 
>>> Can we reiterate (in mail or during upcoming telcons) what our
>>> priorities are currently, and make sure that we're staffed to accomplish
>>> them in a timely manner?
>>> 
>>> I welcome discussion about this. My main goal is to help us get to beta
>>> as soon as possible under our chosen criteria.
>>> 
>>> Most sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Eliot
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkRs-89PKiZpdE0xdm9Sb1ZvRW1Z
>>> RzMtWEdyU0Z4OEE#gid=14
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 10:13:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:13:48 UTC