You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is the agenda for the next meeting, posted here to make it easier to suggest additions.
We are currently at this step in the timeline from web-platform-tests/rfcs#99:
Nov 8 – Nov 21: Browser vendors and others interested in contributing to the effort review the areas and suggest changes to scope, tests, etc. Ranking the proposals by internal priority could also be helpful.
In other words, we should be focusing on evaluating the existing proposals and discourage new proposals at this point. The agenda is to go through each issue and make sure the rationale is clear, and tests are sufficient. Where either isn't the case, there will be an action item to flesh it out before Nov 22.
Here's the agenda, consisting mostly of the current proposals with checkboxes, to be checked in the meeting:
Cutoff point for new proposals. Many good proposals after original Nov 7 timeline, but hard stop today (Nov 18) OK?
Do we want to stick to 3-7 areas as suggested in the RFC? (No need to decide yet.)
This is the agenda for the next meeting, posted here to make it easier to suggest additions.
We are currently at this step in the timeline from web-platform-tests/rfcs#99:
Nov 8 – Nov 21: Browser vendors and others interested in contributing to the effort review the areas and suggest changes to scope, tests, etc. Ranking the proposals by internal priority could also be helpful.
In other words, we should be focusing on evaluating the existing proposals and discourage new proposals at this point. The agenda is to go through each issue and make sure the rationale is clear, and tests are sufficient. Where either isn't the case, there will be an action item to flesh it out before Nov 22.
Here's the agenda, consisting mostly of the current proposals with checkboxes, to be checked in the meeting:
We didn't have enough time to cover these in the meeting:
Note that some of the features have been reordered to put likely-to-be-easier discussions first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: