16 Dec 2020



Patrick_H_Lauke, smaug, plh
Patrick H. Lauke
Patrick H. Lauke


<scribe> Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke

Patrick: I want to keep this short, main point would be if PLH could give us some highlights about this proposed new charter

PLH: materially, the new charter changes nothing as PE3 is not finished yet

we are already operating under policy 2020, but this charter formalises it

main difference: today we don't have any licensing under PE3. if we were under the new patent policy, we would already be licensed from the first public working draft. we don't wait until REC to get patent policy.

as long as we keep publishing CR snapshots we're covered by licensing

every time a call for exclusion is made

this allows for flexibility - do we want to go to REC, or do we want to keep it constantly as candidate recommendation

just publishing CR snapshot requires less work, but you don't get the REC / the full announcement

we may say we care or don't care, either way is fine, it's just a choice

i would propose to the group: we were already looking at publishing PE3. i suggest we go ahead and do that, but after it we don't publish PE4 but keep updating the rec

in order to update, you don't have to go back to previous stages

we combine things into a recommendation update, where we don't have to go back into previous stages

we can update at any point, errata, and are entitled to republish. put a candidate change in there

once we think we're ready to get official stamp, then we promote them as proposed changes

which then prompts call for exclusion etc before it becomes part of full normative recommendation

intended to simplify errata management, less steps/stages. publish as annotation so community can look right away

Patrick: do these changes have to be non-substantive?

PLH: no, they can be substantive , even new features, we just have to make it clear

this is what we get with the new process. we don't have to do anything more special in our charter

the only critical change in the charter is to clarify that we're adopting the new policy

PLH: do you believe you want to do PE3, or update to PE2

only problem with update of PE2 is that we would not be allowed to add new features

but that could be more work

we can also think of doing PE3, but not fret about any new features that aren't quite ready. we publish PE3 as it is, and then have more time to work on the new features once published

only limitation: do not request to have your changes become normative more often than 6 months, as that involves too much work for IP lawyers

in between they can live in the recommendation, but as candidate changes

Patrick: this sound good to me, Olli any questions?

Olli: no questions, sounds good. and as we have new features in PE3, we can probably go to PE3 and then carry on

PLH: once you get to PE3 indicate that you want to update in future with new features

Patrick: this ties in well with my thinking on future of PE. i know the impetus/steam has gone out of the group because PE is pretty much "done". does new process allow to also keep working group in limbo / paused

PLH: yes. can keep WG "alive" without doing anything, but it can then kick in again when changes need to be done

which is why if we get PE3 out of the door in the next 6 months

we don't close working groups anymore, as it creates problems for updating in future

other alternative: if we don't want to push PE3 to rec, we can publish as PR snapshot. less work, but no new features

Patrick: we probably want to move to PE3

plh: i want to give this group until january for the charter, keep the scope to minimum so we have enough freedom to do what we need without alerting anybody. then in future only thing we have to have to change is end date

in january i'll get through management steps so it can be sent to AC for review by end of january

we're about to get charter extension until end of Jan, and then adopt new charter if AC happy with it

in meantime, we can continue, not preventing us from doing anything

whether we want to do monthly calls, or even just one a year to go over lists in github, or just github

Patrick: i think keeping a "heartbeat" type of meeting every few months at least will be good, just because it reminds members about participation (versus github, where it's easy to forget/get drowned out by lots of other notifications etc)

Olli: agreed

Patrick: in any case, I'll get an official question sent to the list about going for the new charter, I don't foresee Google having anything against this approach

next, to keep the meeting short, I was just going to mention our long-standing issue about click events etc being promoted to pointer events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/100 and that the PR was merged https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/317

Olli: and I just commented again on it, as the last wording still isn't backwards compatible https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/317#pullrequestreview-553855770

and I think Gecko currently uses 0 for mouse-generated pointer events

so option is to either change Gecko, or change the value in the spec, or drop this reserved value altogether

Patrick: can I ask you to do an issue/PR on this?

Olli: yes

Patrick: then we can look at this in more detail/comment

Ok, keeping it short. As next week there's no meeting, our next proper meeting will be on 6 January. Meanwhile, have a good holiday/break, and stay safe

Olli: https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/342

<smaug> Patrick_H_Lauke: btw, I and edgar were triaging today some of the bugs we have and interestingly https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/285 came up in couple of cases.

good candidate then for trying to address this

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/16 17:08:06 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: Patrick_H_Lauke smaug plh
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Patrick_H_Lauke
Found Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2020OctDec/0055.html

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]