Publish minutes of 2022-09-01 meeting #268
Conversation
Also fixed some timezone references (PST -> PDT)
|
Was #258 discussed at this meeting? I don't see #252 discussed at this meeting. Why @carlosjeurissen added label I see chrome and safari don't opposed to #267 . Why @Rob--W added label |
|
@hanguokai Thanks for closely following the meeting notes and processes in the group. #252 was discussed in the previous meeting (Aug 4, 2022), in which Chrome and Safari expressed being in favour. As for #267, neutral tags might also work here. @xeenon proposed to be able to tag issues with a neutral |
It wasn't part of the agenda, so it wasn't covered. I don't know if omission from the agenda by @xeenon was intentional.
This was dicussed during the previous meeting. Notes from that meeting are at The labels were recently added because they are new, see #244 for details on labels.
The "Resolution" comment in the meeting notes was added after we all reached consensus on closing the issue. |
Closing it is OK. But I'm talking about labels here, you could close it without "reject" labels.
In 2022-08-04-wecg.md, about #252 ,
Like millions of other Chromium issues, I think this sentence means this is a beginning and does not mean acceptance. In today meeting note, about #267 ,
I think this likes above sentence, that means you can add an issue too, but will not implement soon.
This is better than "accept" or "reject". I understand, from browser venders point of view, there are still a lot of important issues that remain unresolved. Therefore, it is often difficult to say whether it will be implemented or when it will be implemented. |
We've just renamed "accepted" to "supportive" to more closely match what we're intending.
In a similar vein, we've renamed "rejected" to the less strongly worded "opposed".
The meeting notes reflect what has been said in the meeting. Because it is a discussion, viewpoints can change after having expressed and processed the initial statements. In this specific example, we were initially indifferent/neutral, but after weighing the options we decided to oppose the feature request (elaborated in #267). |
|
Most of the discussion on this issue seems to be about how labels have been applied to issues rather than the minutes themselves. As such, I think it may be best to (1) move discussion of the labels themselves to issue #244 and (2) move discussion of a whether given label was correctly applied to that issue's comments. |
Generated from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkwhEMtMS67JBUkl_WVPZ4lRSKoWcQNlLJSf_GwSXg8/edit using the tool and process from #105.
During this meeting we discussed or mentioned #260, #261, #262, #263, #264, #267, #244, #232, #242, #162.
I've also fixed some timezone references (PST -> PDT). Unfortunately, the everytimezone links were also off-by-one for many months, but they should be good now.