[CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2023-01-11 [selectors-4] [css-animations-2] [css-transitions-2] [css-color] [css-nesting]

=========================================
  These are the official CSSWG minutes.
  Unless you're correcting the minutes,
 Please respond by starting a new thread
   with an appropriate subject line.
=========================================


Selectors 4
-----------

  - Though the discussion on issue #8174 (Add pseudo-class to
      establish before-change style for css-transitions on new
      elements) had leaned toward adding a pseudo-element instead of a
      pseudo-class, there were concerns this was new ground for
      pseudo-elements. It was agreed that this should be a
      pseudo-class behaving more like :visited. A new proposal will be
      drafted and then this issue will be brought back to the group.

Animations & Transitions
-------------------------

  - The group discussed the proposal for entry and exit animations for
      top-layer elements (Issue #8189) and a few considerations were
      raised.
      - The proposal needs to ensure that it doesn't have the same
          problems as z-index.
      - There was some uncertainty as to if this should apply to
          non-modal dialogs.
      - Some concern was expressed that this only applied to
          transitions where authors may try and use it for other
          properties.

CSS Color
---------

  - RESOLVED: Accept Chris's proposal [of text for resolving the RCS
              value when currentColor is the origin] (Issue #7978: Is
              relative color syntax ready to ship?)
  - RESOLVED: Keywords with multiple specified types result in number
              (Issue #7876: Clarification on how `channel keywords`
              with multiple specified types work)

CSS Nesting
-----------

  - RESOLVED: Adopt Option 3 (Issue #8249: Problem with mixing
              properties and selectors)
  - A Nesting breakout will be scheduled next week to cover the
      outstanding objection to the above resolution as well as make
      additional progress on other Nesting issues.

===== FULL MEETING MINUTES ======

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Jan/0002.html

Present:
  Rachel Andrew
  Rossen Atanassov
  Tab Atkins
  Oriol Brufau
  Emilio Cobos Álvarez
  Yehonatan Daniv
  Elika Etemad
  Robert Flack
  Simon Fraser
  Mason Freed
  Megan Gardner
  Chris Harrelson
  Daniel Holbert
  Brad Kemper
  Jonathan Kew
  Vladimir Levin
  Rune Lillesveen
  Chris Lilley
  Peter Linss
  Alison Maher
  Eric Meyer
  Morgan Reschenberg
  Khushal Sagar
  Jen Simmons
  Miriam Suzanne
  Bramus Van Damme
  Lea Verou
  Sebastian Zartner

Regrets:
  David Baron
  Jonathan Davis
  Jennifer Strickland

Chair: Rossen

Scribe: fantasai
Scribe's scribe: TabAtkins

Agenda Setting
==============

  astearns: Most of the nesting issues are fine to take up and are
            ready, but I'm just not seeing consensus on the blocking
            issue 8249.
  astearns: Not sure we need to spend call time on it until we get to
            a better situation in the issue itself
  TabAtkins: Safari and Chrome are both interested in shipping very
             soon
  TabAtkins: If we defer until the logjam resolves itself, it's going
             to get resolved by somebody shipping
  astearns: We try to address the objection
  TabAtkins: That's why we didn't resolve last time
  TabAtkins: but we need to discuss and resolve
  * fantasai thinks further discussion in the issue isn't going to be
             helpful, this needs live discussion

  jensimmons: The two color issues are important for us to get to today
  jensimmons: and also nesting
  jensimmons: When Peter raised the objection, there were 3 parts and
              we opened different issues to discuss
  jensimmons: there were a lot of conversations that were had about
              those objections
  jensimmons: and I do think we can focus our objections on that
              specific thing and not repeat ourselves
  jensimmons: So maybe do the first two issues, then color, then the
              rest of the call for nesting
  Rossen: ok, we can try that
  <fantasai> +1
  <fantasai> good suggestion, jensimmons
  <emeyer> +1

  ntim: I would like to get to #3
  ntim: don't know if it will fit in this call
  Rossen: Let's see how quickly we get through the first six we have
          right now
  Rossen: the sooner we start, the sooner we might get to those

Selectors 4
===========

Add pseudo-class to establish before-change style for css-transitions
    on new elements
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8174

  flackr: When coming from display:none have no display style
  flackr: so can't define a from state
  flackr: can define in CSS animation, but less ergonomic
  flackr: so proposing we add an :initial pseudo-class which
          establishes the initial style
  flackr: the before-change style for CSS transitions
  flackr: In discussion, decided that if we made this a pseudo-element
  flackr: we could optimize this by preventing e.g. sibling selectors
          and only require occasional style calculation when it's used
  flackr: so proposal is to have ::initial establish the initial style

  emilio: This would be a pseudo-element that matches against an
          element?
  emilio: so matches element rules plus magic pseudo-element?
  <fantasai> pseudo-element would be applied on top of element rules
  emilio: that's pretty different from pseudo-element
  emilio: I don't think we have a precedence for this, which is a bit
          tricky
  emilio: I'm also confused when you want it
  emilio: This is for coming back from display:none?
  emilio: Seems implementable, but seems tricky and weird to make it a
          pseudo-element
  emilio: because targetting two element styles on one
  emilio: weird with regards to cascade
  flackr: That's good feedback for pseudo-element approach

  flackr: Could also take pseudo-class approach, but less easily
          optimizable?
  emilio: In what sense?
  flackr: If you have combinator selectors, element showing up in the
          DOM can cause recalculation
  emilio: But that's the case for all pseudo-element
  flackr: This is extra style recalc that doesn't normally exist
  emilio: I'm a bit confused, you recalc more if you have :initial
          along the combinators.... depending how well you optimize
  flackr: I think given :initial is only establishing before-change
          style and otherwise doesn't apply to the element, not that
          weird that it conflicts with other styles
  flackr: because those other styles can't initiate transitions from
          display:none
  emilio: We have a similar case with pseudo-classes for links
  emilio: need to resolve :visited / :unvisitied, need to do
          unconditionally, but don't understand why :initial would be
          slower
  flackr: If initial is a pseudo-class, can be used as part of
          combinator selectors
  flackr: so have to resolve all those combinators
  flackr: but if pseudo-element, can't be used in those combinators
  emilio: For :visited we have special case
  emilio: basically :visited on left of sibling is ignored
  flackr: Ah, we could do that
  emilio: The way I think of implementing it is, we have this
          element ...
  emilio: otherwise :initial only matches rightmost compound
  flackr: That sounds reasonable to me
  emilio: That would be less weird
  <fantasai> +1 to emilio

  futhark: Ignoring the pseudo-class, when resolving selectors, would
           have already computed style for previous one so would have
           existing computed style
  futhark: so :initial wouldn't match on those elements
  emilio: Right. :initial can only match in this special case
  emilio: "this element is now :initial", now compute
  emilio: with :has() have similar dependency...
  futhark: Similar if getComputedStyle() in display:none subtree
  futhark: You need to ensure you have styles there to do inherit etc.
  emilio: Not for siblings, but for ancestors
  emilio: I'd rather say that it only matches on the rightmost
  <flackr> +1
  <chrishtr> +1

  fantasai: How does this interact with page loading, partly loading?
  flackr: Applies anytime the element first gets a layout box
  flackr: This would apply any time you add element to a page
  flackr: Separate issue for avoiding running things during load
  flackr: but this is pre-existing problem for animations, which run
          on page load
  Rossen: So based on description, this would not fire on
          display:contents ?
  Rossen: since it doesn't have a box?
  flackr: That sounds right

  emilio: I think I'd rather special-case it to display:none since
          that's the actual thing
  <futhark> +1 to emilio.
  emilio: At least, I don't think display:contents stops animations in
          the subtree, whereas display:none does

  PaulG: If we're leaning towards pseudo-element, how would that
         affect AX tree?
  PaulG: If not supposed to be animated at that time, just want to
         make sure we consider that
  flackr: Don't think we're leaning towards the pseudo-element approach
  flackr: but not intended to establish a separate element, just style
          the real element in the before-change state
  fantasai: Suggest maybe flackr and emilio can come back with a
            revised proposal, and we can move to other issues
  flackr: fwiw, AX should be equivalent to animations
  Rossen: ok, let's end here
  Rossen: Come back when you're ready, thanks for introducing

CSS Animations & Transitions
============================

Entry and Exit Animations for top-layer elements
------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8189

  flackr: When certain elements go in/out of top layer
  flackr: if devs want to have an animation on the, they need the
          element to remain in the top layer for duration of the
          animation
  flackr: So proposal is that we allow specifying top layer in the
          transition properties
  flackr: but that it's otherwise not a developer-stylable property
  flackr: Essentially, you can specify transition: top-layer
  flackr: and give it a duration
  flackr: and this is the duration during which the element stays in
          the top layer

  ntim: I've always been against the top-layer CSS property concept
  ntim: The concept should really stay abstracted away from the
        developer
  ntim: even just introducing this property is a bad first step, I
        think
  lea: I wanted to ask ntim why he thinks this concept should be
       abstracted away from the developer
  lea: There's a lot of reasons it should controllable in CSS
  lea: We keep seeing use cases that could be solved if could be
       controlled in CSS
  ntim: If you allow controlling top layer with CSS, you end up with
        same issues as z-index
  ntim: the appeal of top layer right now is that it's controlled by
        order of JS API calls
  ntim: but once you start allowing random elements to put top-layer,
        then what order is actually used in the end?
  lea: I think that depends on how we design the feature
  lea: maybe it's a property that just the UA controls
  lea: though I hope to avoid that
  ntim: I think it needs a real design
  ntim: just exposing this concept...
  lea: Yes, absolutely, does need design work to do it properly to not
       have problems of z-index
  lea: Total +1 to that
  <chrishtr> Note that the proposal is not incompatible with ntim's
             concern. I agree with his concern.

  emilio: I don't think I have a strong feeling wrt top layer property
  emilio: but basically the use case seems to be transitioning modal
          dialogs and so on when opening and closing
  emilio: and I assume other elements in the top layer
  emilio: to me that seems like a use case that non-modal dialogs also
          need
  emilio: there are dialogs that may not be in the top layer
  emilio: so feels to me that this is a clever hack to avoid having
          closing/closed state on the dialog and fullscreen things
  emilio: not sure if that's been considered
  emilio: so why is this property better
  emilio: Why not say that it goes from open to non-open, have an
          intermediate state, and define that intermediate state
          transition as when all its transitions have finished

  flackr: Wrt ntim's concern about exposing top-layer to the user, we
          have these stacking questions
  flackr: this proposal nicely avoids, because things remain in their
          current stacking position
  flackr: so we don't have to change any of that or figure out those
          definitions yet
  flackr: I don't understand what non-modal dialogs have a problem,
          they can continue to apply their desired z-index
  emilio: But you still have the issue of if you want a close
          animation on a dialog, you need to do it manually
  flackr: Dialog element, which is top-layer?
  emilio: Dialog may or may not be top layer depending on show vs
          showModal
  <masonf> If the dialog isn't modal, it isn't in the top layer, and
           you don't need this.
  flackr: It would maintain its top layer state during transition, but
          still have to define the animation

  emilio: Idea is you can do opacity or transform or whatever to hide
          the dialog, right?
  emilio: Right now that's not easy to do with non-modal dialogs either
  emilio: why not have ...
  emilio: Firefox has all its panels as well, we have animations when
          you use menus
  emilio: and those are just web elements
  emilio: Internally we have 5 states
  emilio: open, opening, closing, closed
  emilio: We have intermediate states so that the front end can
          actually use transitions for this stuff
  emilio: my question is, why is this specific to top-layer and not to
          elements that pop in and out
  flackr: You can't reasonably establish entry animations is resolved
          by setting initial styles
  flackr: with that, should be possible to do on non-modal dialogs
  flackr: top-layer is the only thing they don't have access to
  flackr: the model is consistent with other things that have a state
          change trigger an animation
  flackr: state changes immediately, even though animation continues
          to run
  <masonf> non-modal dialogs need the ability to animate to/from
           display:none, but that's a separate issue.
  emilio: When non-modal dialog closes, you want to ?? animation to
          display:none
  emilio: You transition display, which we resolved to do but don't
          yet do
  emilio: so your proposal would be to animation display directly and
          also transition opacity
  flackr: I have proof of concept for Chrome
  emilio: So this proposal is to explicitly allow z-order to remain
          while transitioning
  emilio: like transitioning display
  emilio: On one hand, I think it would be less weird to have these
          intermediate states
  emilio: when you open dialog, you transition to opening state
  emilio: when you update style and don't have transitions running
          you're open
  emilio: etc.
  emilio: When no pending transitions transition to closed
  emilio: only targetted to dialogs/popovers/etc. but I think that's
          the main use case
  emilio: I think that would be slightly less weird for authors
  emilio: rather than transitioning display ...
  emilio: having magic property seems weird
  emilio: I guess this proposal weird, but I think maybe having
          intermediate pseudo-classes could be more elegant and usable
          for authors
  flackr: I think this is more consistent with other state changes for
          the Web

  fantasai: Why not have things just stay in the top layer until their
            transitions are done automatically?
  ntim: That seems to make sense
  chrishtr: Having a transitioning state and this automatically detect
            what they're happening and preserve top layer during UA
            was thoroughly explored during popover design
  chrishtr: and prototyped in Chromium
  chrishtr: Was specific to popover and dialog, and why not have a
            generic mechanism in animations
  chrishtr: This is what lead to these proposals for display:none
            animations and specifying top-layer duration
  chrishtr: without specifying UA magic to detect length of animations
  chrishtr: discussed at length in popover API proposal

  lea: Firstly, it seems weird to have a property that only works in
       transitions
  lea: if devs want to put things in the top layer, what prevents them
       from adding an animation that puts them in the top layer?
  emilio: ....
  lea: so only available in transitions?
  lea: What prevents having a transition that lasts 999999s?
  emilio: You'd need to call modal
  lea: Trying to prevent devs by adding only to transitions, it's a
       hack and can be worked around
  emilio: I agree
  emilio: Internally, how we implement top layer
  emilio: I'm not sure how I feel about this
  [missed]

  Rossen: Let's end this topic right here
  Rossen: we covered quite a bit, but this doesn't seem ready for
          resolution
  Rossen: Was well articulated and proposed, and good path forward for
          addressing some of the TAG review comments
  Rossen: Should take conversation back to GH, and should bring it
          back when it's more developed

Agenda Setting
==============

  Rossen: Two nesting and two color issues, top priority. Order?
  chris: Would like to suggest the color issues, think there's
         consensus
  chris: if agreed, we can close rapidly

CSS Color
=========

Is relative color syntax ready to ship?
---------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7978

  chris: Problem was specifying base color as currentcolor
  chris: I added spec text similar to color-mix()
  chris: if that's okay by everyone we have solved the issue
  TabAtkins: Great for me
  Rossen: Anyone else?

  RESOLVED: Accept Chris's proposal

  <lea> +1

Clarification on how `channel keywords` with multiple specified
    types work
---------------------------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7876

  chris: Main issue raised was that the keywords could have two
         possible types, doesn't work
  chris: either number or percentage
  chris: Went with number to be consistent with serialization
  TabAtkins: nit pick comment, you accidentally did percentage for
             wmb, but otherwise it's great
  chris: It's because color-4 it only takes a percentage
  TabAtkins: Ah, in that case it's completely fine

  chris: Any other comments?
  chris: Anyone need more time?
  ntim: Didn't have a chance to look at it

  lea: Does that mean for rgb they resolve to 0-255 range?
  chris: Yes, but remember it's 0.0 to 255.0 so you don't lose
         precision
  lea: But inconsistent with rgb models
  chris: Because it was invented poorly
  lea: I agree but does that mean we don't need relative color syntax
       for rgb?
  chris: I have a lot of trouble coming up with use cases
  chris: I haven't found a good example
  lea: I think it's primarily for completeness, but we don't generally
       do things just for completeness
  lea: restrict to color()?
  chris: I wouldn't go that far
  chris: Let's resolve this and deal in other issues?
  chris: Get consensus on going to number?

  Rossen: So do we have enough consensus?
  lea: Consensus is about every component that's "number or something
       else" resolves to number?
  lea: so hues resolve to numbers?
  chris: Yeah, all examples treat hues as number
  chris: so I think most ppl are treating as numbers
  lea: Yes, that's what authors do
  <argyle> +1 to number
  [...]

  chris: Proposal, keywords with multiple specified types result in
         number
  Rossen: Any additional feedback or objections?
  jensimmons: This is fine with us from Apple

  RESOLVED: Keywords with multiple specified types result in number

CSS Nesting
===========

Problem with mixing properties and selectors
--------------------------------------------
  github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249

  TabAtkins: I'm willing to summarize what I believe plinss's position
             is, he can correct
  TabAtkins: Fear is that the direction the spec is specifying will
             overly constrain future CSS
  TabAtkins: certain new syntactical things in properties or selectors
  TabAtkins: Proposal is instead to have a dedicated syntax to mark
             things as a selector
  TabAtkins: that way all future syntactical developments would still
             be allowed
  TabAtkins: and future developments for selectors, which might
             currently conflict with properties, would also be allowed
  TabAtkins: because you have a glyph to mark it as a selector
  TabAtkins: Related is the 8251 issue, where dbaron discusses the
             things that trigger selector processing and not currently
             used by selectors
  TabAtkins: this issue accepts mixing of properties and selectors in
             grammar space
  TabAtkins: Issue is, we've already discussed previously, what plinss
             is suggesting
  TabAtkins: This was Option 1, you had to start with & or @nest or
             various variants thereof
  TabAtkins: This was rejected by WG for verbosity and for copy-paste
             limitations
  TabAtkins: Core issue is, WG has looked over that syntax direction
             and rejected it in the past
  TabAtkins: so I would like to re-affirm that decision, that we're
             not going to use a dedicated marker syntax of some kind
             to denote selectors and separate them from properties
  TabAtkins: but rather go with current approach of mixing the space
  TabAtkins: make sure the Syntax spec creates a clear dividing line

  fantasai: I think something Tab didn't emphasize is the core part of
            Peter's concern for forward compat
  fantasai: The real effect of forwards compat isn't as - we're not
            limiting as much as it seems like we are
  fantasai: What we're allowing for the future is anything that's
            invalid, regardless of whether it's currently property or
            selector
  fantasai: The space of "what is invalid junk" is actually really
            broad even with our current proposal
  <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1362033982
  fantasai: The only thing we can't expand into is a super-limited
            syntax space that I can't imagine us actually doing
  <fantasai> #stuff starting with a symbol { anything in this block }
             valid-property: value;
  fantasai: We can't start with a symbol, *and* has a curly-brace
            block *and* is followed by something that looks like a
            property
  fantasai: This is the only thing you can't define in the future is a
            cool new feature
  fantasai: If it doesn't look like that it's invalid - whether a
            property or style rule, we throw it out
  fantasai: And in the future we can call it valid either way
  fantasai: So for concern about painting us into a corner, it's
            actually a very small corner and the rest of the space is
            open

  plinss: Just want to clarify a couple points, most of what Tab said
          is accurate
  plinss: it's not necessarily required to have a solution that
          prefixes every single rule
  plinss: Also fine to create a new scope
  plinss: just nested brackets or whatever, that also solves the
          copy-paste problem
  plinss: Just want something that delineates the syntax space
  plinss: We did resolve not to do this in the past, but I'm not sure
          that took everything into account
  plinss: not locked by previous decision
  <astearns> +1 to not taking older @nest decision as final
  <fantasai> would have also wanted to delineate syntax space, but we
             didn't get there

  jensimmons: I did hear plinss's concerns, and we've discussed
              exhaustively
  jensimmons: but despite downsides, I see all the momentum going
              towards Option 3 including from webdevs
  jensimmons: There was a lot of conversations after final December
              meeting, and I appreciate dbaron, fantasai, TabAtkins
              investigating what we would limit ourselves
  jensimmons: but it seems we're not really limiting ourselves, so I
              think should move forward
  jensimmons: Want a path that moves us forward and is realistic and
              acceptable

  lea: A lot of things I wanted to say were mentioned by fantasai,
       still have a lot of space for expansion
  lea: but we could expand that space even further by reserving some
       characters

  plinss: I'm not sure I buy fantasai's argument
  plinss: it's not infinite, but there are cases where we wanted to do
          something but couldn't because shows up in the wild as some
          weird hack
  plinss: I think it'll be limiting
  plinss: Example is custom properties, couldn't have done that if we
          had done this first
  plinss: I don't want us to get into that situation
  fantasai: Lets take the custom property example
  fantasai: say initial hyphen switched us to selector parsing
  fantasai: we could do it
  fantasai: You'd throw it out as an invalid selector today
  fantasai: And that means we can reinterpret it later
  fantasai: Have you really looked at what the limiting case is?
  fantasai: The conditions are really strict. anything that's
            currently invalid and gets thrown out, we can reinterpret
  fantasai: have to keep in mind that the parsing in the nested
            context isn't the same as top-level, we truncate at
            top-level semicolon even in selector parsing
  fantasai: So there's very limited - can't think of anything you want
            to do that'll cause a problem
  <lea> *Nesting itself* is a case where past syntax limits us in what
        we can do syntactically (going back, maybe we should have used
        something other than a colon for pseudos), but it's not an
        insurmountable problem, we are designing around it. We'll
        design around these issues in the future too, if they come up.

  plinss: We could solve this with lookahead
  plinss: Also concerned that we have stuff that's valid for selectors
          and can't re-use for properties
  plinss: selectors can be really really really long, especially with
          lists of selectors
  plinss: Thing at the end that changes selector or property, could
          get into situation that we cant solve without a lot of
          lookahead
  <lea> regarding exploring lookahead, I tried. Here's a summary:
        https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1362739063

  Rossen: I've closed the queue, 2min past the hour
  Rossen: Strong arguments in both directions
  Rossen: Alan proposed we make nesting an additional call, can make
          it as soon as next week e.g. 1hr before the main CSS call
  Rossen: but right now we don't seem to have consensus
  <lea> +1 to Nesting breakout
  Rossen: or we can take a resolution and ask Peter to file a formal
          objection
  TabAtkins: I would prefer to get the formal objection filed now if
             it's going to be filed, would rather not be in limbo
  <lea> let's try to avoid a FO as much as we can, the TAG is already
        overworked :(
  <lea> we need a Nesting breakout even regardless of the FO, don't
        we? So let's schedule that
  TabAtkins: fantasai and I explored the syntax space carefully, we
             don't think there's a real limitation there
  TabAtkins: so I don't think further discussion will yield anything
             useful
  Rossen: ok, we'll try to have a call for nesting, whether this topic
          is part of it or not is TBD

  Rossen: I will call for objections, and then have a resolution that
          seems supported by rest of group
  Rossen: Any objections?
  plinss: I clearly object. More than happen to have the long call or
          breakout or sub-breakout or whatever
  plinss: Happy to let Tab and fantasai convince me that I'm wrong
  plinss: and to change my mind
  <oriol> I'm more on Peter's side on this topic
  plinss: but shy of that, or changing the processing rules, I sustain
          my objection
  Rossen: It does seem this has been discussed over and over, and I
          hear support for this from many people
  Rossen: so suggest we resolve this, or take up as additional changes
          to the current resolution
  plinss: We've resolved on Option 3 with this issue open
  plinss: still saying we can discuss at the breakout call, so what's
          point of resolving?
  Rossen: We resolved to discount other options, not to adopt Option 3
  [some discussion of what we resolved or didn't]
  <lea> fwiw, I agree with plinss that lookahead should be explored
        more. But not primarily for futureproofing (I think there's
        enough syntax space that we're not painting ourselves into a
        corner), but primarily for syntax ergonomics. I'm not
        convinced it's an unsolvable problem.

  jensimmons: Would be helpful to take the temperature of the room
  fantasai: straw poll, and then close discussion until next week?
  Rossen: A = support Option 3, and B = not support it
  <argyle> A
  <jensimmons> A
  <ydaniv> A
  <TabAtkins> A
  <fantasai> A
  <oriol> B
  <bradk> A
  <SebastianZ> A
  <miriam> A
  <plinss> B
  <dholbert> A
  <GameMaker> A
  <flackr> A
  <davidleininger> A
  <futhark> A
  <florian> A
  <lea> I find the question unclear, so I'm not voting.
  * fantasai also doesn't like not having a split syntax space, but we
             haven't had any acceptable proposals to split it
  <lea> A
  <Rossen> A
  Rossen: Pretty strong signal here, let's go ahead and record this as
          a resolution. We will try to get the extra nesting
          discussions, Peter I'm hoping you can proceed with next
          steps if you want to pursue formal objection or wait until
          next week
  plinss: Happy to discuss on breakout call, but want to actually get
          to it
  Rossen: We've never had a rule that we can't re-open previous
          resolutions :)
  plinss: That's been the argument several times
  florian: From the other angle, if you do file an FO and are
           subsequently convinced, you can retract it
  plinss: If discussing in a week, don't need to file an objection
          today
  Rossen: We'll schedule for next week then
  jensimmons: Please schedule for next week, it's quite important to us

  RESOLVED: Adopt Option 3

  Rossen: I appreciate everyone staying longer than usual, we don't
          almost ever, but this is an important topic to many
  Rossen: We'll schedule an additional meeting next week

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2023 11:02:25 UTC