Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2016-03-09 [css-values] [css-writing-modes] [css-ui-4] [css-scoping] [css-grid]

On 10/03/16 12:39, Dael Jackson wrote:
>   rossen: One more thing, I want to reinforce the point is that
>           these are awesome.
>   <glazou> +1 to what rossen said
>   rossen: In this particular case there was a lot of hype.
>   rossen: I don't want to see statements that look like WG
>           resolutions and see tweets from influential authors saying
>           we're going to need to wait to ship until subgrid is in.
>   rossen: I think the workshops are great for feedback from the
>           community but I want to keep the resolutions of the WG
>           within the WG, and keep the public confusion to a minimum
>           if possible.
>   fantasai: To respond to that, I don't have any control over what
>             other people say, so I don't see what I can possibly do.
>             Do you want me to tell people to not write about it?
>   rossen: No, I'm not asking you to do that, just set the stage from
>           the beginning possibly that nothing coming out of these
>           discussions are not in stone until their reviewed by the
>           CSSWG.

Just to be crystal clear about this. As an attendant of the NYC Grid
Workshop I knew from the very beginning that the purpose of it was
sharing ideas and to make each party understand the position of the
other. I knew that the potential agreements we might reach, were not
resolutions at all, and that everything should go through the WG. I
wouldn't blame fantasai in any case, she did an awesome job organizing
the event and she never said that the things we were discussing were set
on stone (apart from editorial changes).

And then there is my email[1] to blink-dev summarizing the status of
grid layout implementation in blink. That had nothing to do with the
workshop BTW, the Blink Layout Team (which I'm part of) asked me to send
it because people wanted to know about the status. That email was
apparently not very well understood. Or perhaps the wording was far from
the best one. Some people inferred that the spec was directly being
modified by an unknown group of authors and implementors, not following
any of the CSSWG procedures. That is not the reality at all as you all
know, but I just wanted to make it explicit here.

BR

PS: awesome meeting minutes as usual

[1]
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/y221wJxoh8

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 13:13:51 UTC