16:03:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
16:03:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-css-irc
16:03:34 <melinda> melinda has joined #CSS
16:03:42 <glazou> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, +95089aabb, [Microsoft], plinss, hyatt, Bert, +1.858.655.aaee, Melinda_Grant, George, +1.703.265.aaff
16:03:56 <glazou> Zakim, +95089aabb is me
16:03:56 <Zakim> +glazou; got it
16:04:36 <Zakim> +??P0
16:04:44 <jason_cranfordtea> jason_cranfordtea has joined #css
16:04:49 <glazou> Zakim, ??P0 is Ming
16:04:49 <Zakim> +Ming; got it
16:05:14 <glazou> Zakim, +1.703.265 is jason_cranfordtea
16:05:14 <Zakim> +jason_cranfordtea; got it
16:05:21 <plinss> zakim, +1.858.655 is Ming
16:05:21 <Zakim> +Ming; got it
16:05:37 <howcome> howcome has joined #CSS
16:05:40 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #css
16:05:44 <plinss> zakim, +1.703.265 is jason_cranfordtea
16:05:44 <Zakim> sorry, plinss, I do not recognize a party named '+1.703.265'
16:05:51 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:06:51 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:06:55 <SaloniR> zakim, Microsoft is me
16:06:55 <Zakim> +SaloniR; got it
16:08:17 <Zakim> + +1.510.981.aagg
16:08:52 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #css
16:09:13 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:09:16 <plinss> zakim, +1.510.981 is fantasai
16:09:16 <Zakim> +fantasai; got it
16:09:32 <fantasai> Zakim, who is here?
16:09:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, glazou, SaloniR, plinss, hyatt, Bert, Ming.a, Melinda_Grant, George, jason_cranfordtea, Ming, [Microsoft.a], SteveZ, fantasai
16:09:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see fantasai, SteveZ, howcome, jason_cranfordtea, melinda, RRSAgent, SaloniR, Zakim, George, dsinger, glazou, hyatt, citoyen, plinss, bjoern, trackbot, Arron, jdaggett,
16:09:38 <Zakim> ... Hixie, krijnh, Bert
16:09:50 <Ming> Ming has joined #css
16:10:52 <fantasai> Peter: Any more topics to add to agenda?
16:10:54 <fantasai> <silence>
16:11:01 <fantasai> Topic: Charter
16:11:08 <fantasai> Peter: Daniel had a conversation with Chris via email
16:11:24 <fantasai> Daniel: We sent proposed charter 10 days ago
16:11:31 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2008AprJun/0307.html
16:11:40 <fantasai> Daniel: Main concern about charter is too-long list of deliverables.
16:11:47 <fantasai> Daniel: He's afraid W3C management will choke on this
16:12:06 <fantasai> Daniel: The new Domain Leader thinks the list is too long for the time frame. Chris agrees.
16:12:18 <fantasai> Daniel: I said that the list was already a difficult compromise
16:12:29 <fantasai> Daniel: And that the WG wants to preserve the ability to work on these items
16:12:48 <dsinger> would it look better if we split into N working groups, each with a reasonable length list, and we all joined all the groups?
16:12:48 <fantasai> Daniel: But he doesn't think w3cm will find it acceptable.
16:12:51 <dsinger> :-)
16:13:11 <fantasai> Daniel: He looks like the first set looks like it can be done
16:13:29 <melinda> s/He/It/
16:13:56 <fantasai> Daniel: He said we should work on an item in the second set only if it can replace a completed item on the first set
16:14:06 <fantasai> Daniel: And that the last set is unrealistic.
16:14:34 <fantasai> Daniel: Chris said that it is a lot of work for the documents, first. And there is a lot of work to do on the test suites as well.
16:14:48 <fantasai> Daniel: Furthermore there are IPR issues.
16:15:00 <fantasai> Daniel: A Member joining the WG accepts patent policies wrt list of deliverables.
16:15:07 <fantasai> Daniel: That was SteveZ's concern awhile ago
16:15:22 <fantasai> Daniel: A too-long list of deliverables is not encouraging for new members
16:15:40 <fantasai> Daniel: The second big comment about the charter itself is the lack of explanations for each and every module in the list of deliverables.
16:15:53 <fantasai> Daniel: That list is very meaningful for people who know CSS and are involved in the CSSWG.
16:16:10 <fantasai> Daniel: But it is not meaningful for w3cm and AC reps who are not involved in CSS.
16:16:35 <fantasai> Daniel: He proposed adding for each deliverable a brief description, its current status, status of implementations, status of test suite
16:16:56 <fantasai> Daniel: He insisted a lot on the test suite
16:17:08 <fantasai> Daniel: We should show more and better what is our coverage of tests for a given spec
16:17:22 <fantasai> Daniel: Finally, what are the positive things and blockers for the spec
16:17:26 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
16:17:36 <fantasai> Daniel: What are the arguments we could give to w3cm to make them accept such a deliverable?
16:17:44 <fantasai> Daniel: As I said wrt test suites..
16:18:03 <fantasai> Daniel: The CSS2.1 test suite says it is incomplete and contains a lot of errors. This is something we have to fix.
16:18:09 <fantasai> Daniel: We have to make all the test suites move forward.
16:18:21 <fantasai> Daniel: I told him that writing complete tests is a huge work, and he agreed with that.
16:18:52 <fantasai> Daniel: Since we don't have a lot of resources in the WG, Chris suggested creating an Interest Group who could help with reviewing of tests and running the implementation against the test to produce implementation reports
16:19:24 <fantasai> Daniel: I objected that individuals in such a group  have no legal responsibility if they lie or don't do correct tests.
16:19:37 <alexmog> alexmog has joined #css
16:19:52 <fantasai> Daniel: He said no, there's a commitment when you join an interest group and an implementation report written by someone outside the browse vendor is as valid as one written by the browser vendor
16:20:13 <fantasai> Daniel: Chris would like to see a new section in the new charter that analyzes the previous charter.
16:20:27 <fantasai> Daniel: What were the successes, what were the failures, what do we need, what did we lack.
16:20:40 <fantasai> s/the previous charter/the results of the previous charter/
16:21:05 <fantasai> Daniel: Last point is minor, we probably need liaison with WebAPI or whatever it's called now because of Selectors API
16:22:27 <fantasai> fantasai: We're sort of doing the Interest Group thing already, informally, on public-css-testsuite
16:23:31 <fantasai> Daniel: an Interest Group is more formal legally, and asks for more commitment
16:24:20 <fantasai> Ming: As Elika was saying, a lot of things Chris was suggesting to do, Elika is planning to do.
16:24:47 <fantasai> Ming: We should look at what we're doing, e.g. wrt the review process, and if that is not adequate we can create a group
16:25:49 <fantasai> Daniel: We should start writing test suites when we start writing the spec
16:26:15 <fantasai> Melinda: It makes more sense to start writing tests around when implementations are starting to happen
16:26:51 <fantasai> Daniel: I can see a lot of cases when a browser vendor won't say when they're starting to work on an implementation for competitive reasons
16:27:19 <fantasai> Melinda: We might not always be able to identify that point in time, but I think that's the point we're looking for.
16:27:41 <fantasai> Daniel: We should start writing tests when we feel the spec is starting to stabilize.
16:28:04 <fantasai> Elika: (earlier on) It doesn't make sense to write tests when the drafts is still in the brainstorming phase
16:28:15 <fantasai> Melinda: I don't think this group is very committed to the CSS2.1 test suite
16:28:33 <fantasai> Daniel: So the charter needs more work. We need to spend more time discussing the proposed list of deliverables.
16:28:51 <melinda> s/is very committed to/has a realistic plan for/
16:28:56 <fantasai> Daniel: I perfectly understand the rationale of a long list.
16:29:14 <fantasai> Daniel: But if the result is a rejection by w3cm, then that won't work.
16:29:27 <dsinger> but we can't control what people actually spend their time on
16:29:38 <fantasai> Peter: My concern is what do you define as popping off the stack? Getting to REC? Or not having much to do on it for a few months?
16:29:53 <fantasai> Daniel: Probably the latter. The w3cm's concern is resources.
16:29:59 <fantasai> Peter: I thought that was already our intent.
16:30:14 <fantasai> howcome: I can see the rationale for wanting to cut back because we want to finish.
16:30:26 <fantasai> howcome: but I don't think it will make us not work on other items
16:30:37 <fantasai> howcome: it will only block us from working on some things
16:30:45 <Zakim> -SaloniR
16:30:47 <fantasai> howcome: I don't think we're going to work any faster by cutting down the list.
16:30:56 <fantasai> Jason: I agree. I think it comes back to prioritizing.
16:31:23 <fantasai> Jason: We should work on the high priority items. We shouldn't have to revise the charter to go back and work on soemthing
16:31:49 <fantasai> Daniel: The charter is supposed to be deliverables, not a list if items we want to work on
16:32:12 <fantasai> Daniel: If an item is on a wait list, then that item's chance for success is already questionable.
16:32:25 <fantasai> howcome: We have different opinions on what a charter is.
16:32:46 <fantasai> howcome: I think a charter defines the scope of our work, and if it it has a list of deliverables too, fine.
16:32:58 <fantasai> Daniel: I'm not saying my POV, I'm speaking for management
16:33:14 <fantasai> Steve: The charter is two things, it's what's in scope and what you commit to get done.
16:34:01 <fantasai> howcome: I think the charter should say that we want to be able to work in all these areas
16:34:52 <fantasai> Daniel: Then we put the list in an informative section listing what we might work on, and say that the charter may be extended to include these later
16:35:05 <fantasai> howcome: I think that's too much overhead
16:35:31 <fantasai> Melinda: I don't think the list of things in scope and deliverables need to be one and the same
16:36:06 <fantasai> Steve: Reviewing a one line addition to the charter is pretty quick and straightforward
16:36:33 <fantasai> howcome: I don't think it's that we have X amount of resources that we can point at the pool of work.
16:36:42 <fantasai> howcome: We have different areas of interest.
16:37:02 <fantasai> Daniel: CSSWG is the only WG that is not willing to extend the charter and work like this
16:37:14 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
16:37:23 <fantasai> Daniel: Other working groups accept to have a short list of deliverables and extend the charter to work on other things
16:38:12 <fantasai> howcome: We split our spec up. HTML5 is one item, but it's as big as all CSS3 modules put together
16:38:47 <fantasai> Steve: CSSWG has a bad reputation for not being able to finish anything. I'm not saying it's deserved, but you can see which specs got to REC and ours didn't
16:39:00 <fantasai> Steve: Most other WGs have got RECs already
16:39:06 <fantasai> howcome: Most of which have failed
16:39:26 <fantasai> Peter: What is sounds like Chris is askin for is take everything out of the deliverables except the first group
16:39:46 <fantasai> Peter: Move everything else to a separate section that says these are in scope, but not deliverables.
16:39:56 <fantasai> Daniel: No
16:40:25 <fantasai> Daniel: We can move some items (e.g. Transformations, for which we expect 2 implementations in 6 months) to the first group
16:40:39 <Bert> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/draft-charter2.html
16:40:47 <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/proposed-charter.html
16:41:15 <fantasai> dsinger: Chris asked for a table of information about the specs.
16:41:31 <fantasai> dsinger: That would help: some of these specs are very small
16:41:43 <fantasai> dsinger: If W3cm thinks they are all big specs, then of course they would be very concerned.
16:41:57 <fantasai> dsinger: I think building that table is critical.
16:42:10 <fantasai> dsinger: We could e.g. merge animations, transforms, and ? into one line
16:42:14 <fantasai> dsinger: it would look like less work
16:42:19 <fantasai> dsinger: although it's the same
16:42:38 <fantasai> dsinger: the thing to consider is, how big is this spec, and how much work do we expect it to be?
16:43:07 <fantasai> Peter: Who's going to create this table?
16:43:35 <fantasai> dsinger: wiki the list and have everyone fill in the parts they care about
16:44:10 <fantasai> wiki at http://csswg.inkedblade.net/
16:44:25 <fantasai> Peter: That wiki is public
16:44:29 <fantasai> fantasai: the charter's going to be public
16:45:00 <fantasai> Melinda: What are the metrics we're looking at for the specs?
16:45:09 <fantasai> Melinda: number of pages? number of properties?
16:45:23 <fantasai> Melinda: If we want to assess the amount of work, what do we look at?
16:45:39 <fantasai> Daniel: One thing w3cm wants is a measure of how big the test suite will be
16:45:56 <fantasai> Melinda: Many tests won't be at a point where we can count test assertions
16:46:17 <fantasai> Jason: When we do req docs, we give a "level of effort" score.
16:46:22 <fantasai> Jason: Would we want to give a scale?
16:46:27 <dsinger> yes, small/medium/large on the spec. and the test suite would seem to be enough
16:46:33 <fantasai> Peter: I think we should do it in prose
16:46:46 <dsinger> agree
16:46:47 <fantasai> Peter: This is a large effort, it will take many man-years. This is a small effort it will take a few months.
16:46:56 <glazou> agreed
16:47:16 <dsinger> the test suite is a few dozens of tests, the test suite is many hundred or thousands of tests...
16:48:00 <fantasai> fantasai: I can do that, I just need a clear idea as what blanks need to be there.
16:48:45 <fantasai> Items for each record:
16:48:50 <fantasai> brief description
16:49:04 <fantasai> status of the document
16:49:14 <fantasai> (including anticipated next state of document)
16:49:23 <fantasai> status of implementations
16:49:25 <fantasai> status of test suite
16:49:39 <fantasai> (status includes expectations)
16:49:43 <fantasai> issues/blocking items
16:50:03 <fantasai> reasons why we want this, why it's important
16:50:13 <fantasai> link to the spec
16:50:34 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work
16:50:38 <fantasai> is a good starting point
16:50:43 <dsinger> is the spec. small/large, is the test suite small/large?
16:51:13 <fantasai> Daniel: This solves the problem of information about the documents
16:51:19 <fantasai> Daniel: What do we do about the list of deliverables?
16:51:23 <dsinger> my bet is that this exercise will do some thinning...
16:52:08 <fantasai> Peter: Do we move the rest of the items to an informative section? Move it to the scope section?
16:52:16 <fantasai> Steve: Keep it normative, move it to scope section
16:52:48 <fantasai> Peter: We move things from scope to charter as charter revisions when something needs to move through REC track
16:53:21 <fantasai> Peter: leaving it in the scope section, that allows us to do work on them, but not move them along the REC track
16:54:25 <fantasai> Peter: We shouldn't have to update the charter to let someone work on an editor's draft
16:55:01 <fantasai> Daniel: I think working on an editor's draft is not a problem. FPWD is an issue
16:57:23 <fantasai> Peter: In order to the move something along the REC track, we'll send a note to the AC asking to shift the line from the Scope to the Deliverables section
16:58:57 <fantasai> Melinda and howcome have concerns about items getting stuck and not moving, esp Paged Media and Multicol
16:59:14 <fantasai> Peter: Those groups are not set in stone. Once we fill out the table, we can shift items around.
17:00:04 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai make table template
17:00:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Make table template [on Elika Etemad - due 2008-07-02].
17:00:46 <fantasai> Peter: All advocates need to fill out their module's info
17:01:22 <fantasai> RESOLUTION: Make table with information about specs
17:01:45 <fantasai> RESOLUTION: Create short list of deliverables, put other items in a normative scope section
17:02:04 <fantasai> Peter: I like the idea of an interest group for test suites, everyone give some thought to that
17:02:14 <dsinger> thanks, bye
17:02:19 <Zakim> -hyatt
17:02:21 <Zakim> -Melinda_Grant
17:02:23 <Zakim> -jason_cranfordtea
17:02:25 <Zakim> -Ming
17:02:27 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:02:31 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:02:33 <Zakim> -Ming.a
17:02:37 <Zakim> -plinss
17:02:43 <Zakim> -glazou
17:02:47 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:02:53 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
17:02:58 <Zakim> -George
17:02:59 <Zakim> -Bert
17:03:01 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:03:04 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.398.aaaa, +1.760.741.aacc, +1.281.419.aadd, plinss, Bert, hyatt, +1.858.655.aaee, Melinda_Grant, dsinger, George, +1.703.265.aaff, glazou, Ming,
17:03:08 <Zakim> ... jason_cranfordtea, SteveZ, SaloniR, +1.510.981.aagg, fantasai
17:03:16 <glazou> hyatt: sorry we did not have time for variables but the charter discussion was urgent
17:11:21 <George> George has left #css
18:00:02 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make logs public
18:00:08 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make minutes
18:00:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-css-minutes.html fantasai
18:00:13 <fantasai> RRSAgent: pointer
18:00:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-css-irc#T18-00-13
18:19:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
18:40:26 <fantasai> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/planning/charter-2008