Not exactly. The article says the first number is for major lifecycle events, ie 1.0 means "production ready". They'll be releasing monthly and the second number will be the release increment. The third number will be for patches and fixes.
So to me that doesn't fit in with the Semantic Versioning contract. I think the product is too young yet to use a version scheme that assumes relative API stability.
Well, to be fair, this is why even with semver 0.x means "anything goes". It's only from 1.x onwards that major version increments should be used for backwards-incompatible changes.
Well, I would assume 0.x.x is by nature unstable, so I'm not sure how it doesn't fit. I read the article, but I'm still left wondering for clarification.
So to me that doesn't fit in with the Semantic Versioning contract. I think the product is too young yet to use a version scheme that assumes relative API stability.