W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [csswg] Agenda conf call 12-nov-2014

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:27:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEV2_WbHew6cpce4Z8Kz4frSjfhfeKs3yDF2Ph4Nc5Eq68RjKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Time/Phone/SIP details available to WG Members in w3c-css-wg. See
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2013JanMar/0078.html
> ** CSS WG Members, please send regrets to Member-only list if you can't
> ** attend.
> Regrets: florian, dhauwe, astearns
> 0. Extra agenda items and other digressions
> -------------------------------------------
> 1. CSS3-UI editorship
> ---------------------

I'd like to request, ideally between 0. and 1., to discuss:

0.5 What feature/content changes does the WG want in CSS3-UI?

If there is no specific feature/content changes but rather simply a
request for an updated WG ready for publication, that is ok as well.
Either way I'd like to see an explicit WG consensus resolution for
feature/content edits to CSS3-UI for the editor to make.

I am also ok with the customary 2 week minimum requested time to
comply with a WG resolution for feature/content edits.

In briefly informally talking with Peter during a break at TPAC, he
related to me that one aspect of the new process document changed the
heartbeat requirement to: *every* working draft of a WG is expected to
be published at a certain frequency not just *at least one* working
draft of a WG. (Please correct me if I'm wrong Peter).

If a "heartbeat" update is what is being requested, that would be good
to know too.

Thank you for your consideration,

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 16:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:48 UTC