01:24:25 RRSAgent has joined #wicg 01:24:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/20-wicg-irc 01:28:44 weiler has joined #wicg 01:32:08 agenda+ TAG and incubation 01:32:16 ericc has joined #wicg 01:32:26 agenda+ Best practices for complex incubation projects 01:33:39 tess: objection to audi recording 01:33:44 s/audi/audio/ 01:33:51 iclelland has joined #wicg 01:34:36 take up agendum 1 01:34:42 present+ 01:34:44 hadleybeeman has joined #wicg 01:34:47 AmeliaBR has joined #wicg 01:34:49 lgombos has joined #wicg 01:34:52 present+ 01:34:54 present+ 01:34:58 present+ 01:35:00 present+ 01:35:04 scheib has joined #wicg 01:35:04 present+ 01:35:05 torgo has joined #wicg 01:35:07 jackbsteinberg has joined #wicg 01:35:09 Dongwoo has joined #wicg 01:35:12 present+ 01:35:13 present+ 01:35:14 present+ Dan Appelquist 01:35:29 present+ 01:35:37 present+ 01:35:49 yoav WICG hosts lots of incubations; how can we make this better? 01:35:55 msw_ has joined #wicg 01:36:00 s/yoav/yoav:/ 01:36:01 present+ Laszlo_Gombos 01:36:08 Scribe: Travis 01:36:21 chair: Yoav, Travis, Chris [Marcos in absentia] 01:36:30 yoav: Have seen lots of good feedback on reviews.. at the same time, devs also not happy about latency of process. 01:36:58 .. priorities might be different 01:37:21 rbyers: From Blink perspective, we have good overlap between our process and WICG.... 01:37:41 q? 01:37:46 q+ 01:37:46 ... and the TAG community. Highly overlapping goals; wanting to ship, wanting to get review... 01:37:54 .. have appreciated the TAG review. 01:38:06 npm has joined #wicg 01:38:18 .. We all want spec quality improvements. 01:38:22 q+ 01:38:39 .. Want to see more collaboration between Blink, TAG, WICG 01:38:44 torgo: WORDS 01:39:17 .. we've had a lot of design reviews. This is the TAG's "beating heart" 01:39:26 .. (core activity) 01:39:49 .. have seen success in having more design reviews comeing in. 01:39:55 .. have over a 100 reviews 01:40:10 .. have new processes this year that we hope to help speed up reviews 01:40:18 kimwooglae has joined #wicg 01:40:23 s/100 reviews/100 reviews open right now 01:40:31 .. e.g., recently have started 2 person breakouts to increase throughput. 01:40:59 .. updates to issue template, and process too! 01:41:28 .. avoids lots of back/forth on access control issues, etc. 01:41:40 .. We are interested in talking to WICG about where the gate are or should be. 01:42:05 .. TAG needs to remain responsive to our communities. 01:42:23 chair: Yoav, Travis, Marcos, Chris 01:42:34 .. When talking with slightlyoff about Fugu, brainstormed priority flags as an idea. 01:43:09 rbyers: our folks want to do the right thing, but often TAG review doesn't block, so maybe not everything is high pri. 01:43:26 q? 01:43:28 q+ 01:43:28 q? 01:43:36 q+ 01:43:40 ack bkardell_ 01:43:41 q+ 01:43:51 bkardell_: What's a reasonable amount of time? 01:43:53 q? 01:43:57 q? 01:44:00 .. to create an incubation, request TAG review, ship the feature... 01:44:35 [others] seeking clarity on question 01:44:56 bkardell_: e.g., creation of WICG effort; is gated already. 01:45:05 .. at some point this is ready for TAG review. 01:45:21 marcos: TAG is part of blink process. 01:45:29 cwilso: Not an easy question to answer. 01:45:29 danbri has joined #wicg 01:45:34 q? 01:46:12 ack hadleybeeman 01:46:35 hadleybeeman: We should separate WICG community from blink process. Not here to sort out Blink process (not in our remit). 01:47:33 +1 01:47:39 +1 01:47:40 .. TAG may have gone too far into seeing things too early. Some of these things may not have had sufficient review, etc. Want to find a better balance. 01:47:40 ack cwils 01:47:56 marcosc has joined #wicg 01:48:16 cwilso: As WICG co-chair + blink guy (trying to help blink process). Blink has asked for eraly TAG review... 01:48:58 q? 01:48:58 q? 01:49:00 .. maybe there are multiple levels of ask? Some things might need shallow vs deep review. 01:49:00 Guest19 has joined #wicg 01:49:04 ack AmeliaBR 01:49:10 q+ 01:49:24 AmeliaBR: I'm here as Invited Expert from Web + proposal bringer. 01:49:25 s/shallow/sanity-checking early 01:49:26 s/Some things/Proposals at different stages/ 01:49:42 .. some of these haven't had the review they should have had. 01:49:55 .. all reviews are not equal. Should breakdown the milestones of when things are reviewed 01:50:14 .. lacking the open discussion of problem before solution is presented 01:50:18 +q 01:50:30 .. not sure if TAG is best place for that review... need to ahve a discussion on the problem space. 01:50:48 .. But that discussion needs to happen before later review stages (detail analysis) 01:51:14 ack yoav 01:51:19 +1 to AmeliaBR 01:51:21 q+ to pick up on multi stakeholder discussions 01:51:24 .. Split out different types (granularity or other) of review. 01:51:53 yoav: +1 to hadleybeeman and to cwilso: could have some kind of labeling... 01:52:06 .. spec stage, implementer interest, when will ship... 01:52:16 dschinazi has joined #wicg 01:52:17 .. could help prioritize and know what feedback is needed. 01:52:44 .. Feedback on problem space vs. solution. We can figure out better tools for this. 01:53:02 .. to AmeliaBR: discourse discussion are in two cases: 01:53:09 .. 1) browser developer explainers 01:53:40 .. 2) Web devs with a similar idea (feature request and API shape), but doesn't work out since it doesn't advance much 01:53:53 .. we actually need use cases and pain points (not necessarily prooposals) 01:54:05 .. would love to re-vamp forum to gather use cases. 01:54:25 .. browsers can look there and find evidence of pain points. 01:54:30 q? 01:54:33 ack torgo 01:54:41 .. Can even map rants in to use cases. 01:54:49 torgo: on use cases: 01:54:59 .. TAG doesn't do "ideation" of new features. 01:54:59 q+ to time-check and goal-check 01:55:09 .. (TAG members might) 01:55:22 .. We like to see a design (in order to review) 01:55:42 .. TAG looks over the explainer, try to find the user need, and draw a blank (don't see it) 01:55:47 Often it's phrased as a developer need 01:56:02 .. Would like to see "web users will benefit in this way" 01:56:15 .. Our feedback is sometimes in this form 01:56:28 iclelland has joined #wicg 01:56:33 ack marcos 01:56:39 .. Would love to see how this feeds back to user needs 01:56:51 marcosc: In generally prooposals come through discourse 01:57:02 .. not a huge problem, but could be better. 01:57:17 q+ 01:57:22 AmeliaBR: cite: seems like everything happens in one day! (may not be true, but it's what it seems) 01:57:29 q- later 01:57:43 marcosc: to yoav: engineers will engineer, web devs will... uh, dev? 01:57:53 +1 01:58:01 .. we can't ask them to not provide a solution, since that's how they think. 01:58:01 q+ 01:58:06 s/cite:/lots of the negative reaction is related to Blink proposals where it/ 01:58:10 solution and problem often co-evolve 01:58:20 ack aboxhall 01:58:20 aboxhall_, you wanted to pick up on multi stakeholder discussions 01:58:22 .. lazyload begat intersection observer... would not have found that 01:58:26 q- later 01:58:52 JohnRiv has joined #wicg 01:58:52 aboxhall_: found the process was iterative, solution to problem and back.. 01:59:04 .. multi-stakeholder problem 01:59:15 .. can be hard to find the right community 01:59:38 .. need a small enough group to avoid going in a million directions at once... 01:59:51 .. having enough diversity to get good ideas and rule out other ideas. 02:00:03 .. want to get things to TAG after having the multi-stakeholder discussion 02:00:12 ack scheib 02:00:32 scheib: See points: differentate review types, 02:00:42 .. entry to WICG not gated on TAG review (from marcosc ) 02:00:55 ota has joined #wicg 02:00:59 .. several folks trying to use WICG to gain wider feedback 02:01:13 .. hoping for guideance on when things should enter WICG. 02:01:19 .. should TAG be involved in that or not. 02:01:19 +q 02:01:31 q? 02:01:32 ack yoav 02:01:34 iclelland has joined #wicg 02:01:35 .. clear understanding between TAG and WICG between developers 02:01:45 q- later 02:01:47 q+ to suggest an expected protocol between TAG and WICG 02:02:02 q? 02:02:09 q+ to ask about horizontal review beyond TAG 02:02:12 .. is there entrance criteria to WICG described? 02:02:21 yoav: Anyone can post on discourse 02:02:29 .. start a discussion about problem/solution 02:02:39 scheib: what about incubated specifications? 02:02:58 yoav: require interest from other parties. 02:03:10 https://github.com/wicg/admin#contributing-new-proposals 02:03:32 jyasskin has joined #wicg 02:03:33 q? 02:03:36 yoav: looking for support from some other people in industry 02:03:39 present+ 02:03:40 dxie has joined #wicg 02:03:58 scheib: Are we getting a takeaway to update the protocol for TAG reviews? 02:04:05 q? 02:04:14 yoav: to marcosc: 02:04:19 iclellan1 has joined #wicg 02:04:30 .. use case description should come before solution. 02:04:41 .. solutions should have disclaimer saying this is our first iteration 02:05:06 .. perception of: "X" in title can be a trigger to many folks. 02:05:12 ack marcos 02:05:15 .. thread should be about problem, not solution. 02:05:25 marcosc: yes, absolutely. That's our job as chairs. 02:05:33 .. folks will ask for "X" 02:05:57 .. we want people to add things with zero barriers, but chairs should be active to shape into use cases. 02:06:20 marcosc: I LOVE THE TAG 💘 02:06:25 html5cat has joined #wicg 02:06:30 .. may need a better process there 02:06:43 q+ 02:06:50 .. don't think that TAG review should be part of the WICG process 02:07:10 .. hearing from the TAG, don't bring things to us too early. 02:07:17 .. we give things a hear. 02:07:23 s/hear/year 02:07:27 q? 02:07:36 ack cw 02:07:36 cwilso, you wanted to time-check and goal-check 02:07:41 .. some things mutate over time, then succeed. 02:07:52 cwilso: Have heard: 02:08:04 .. benefit for better framing around user benefits vs API 02:08:12 q+ 02:08:16 .. try to insure multi-stakeholder buy-in 02:08:24 s/insure/ensure 02:08:39 q? 02:08:42 q+ 02:08:50 .. WICG is community to take things to makes me uneasy.. 02:09:18 .. WICG is broad, want incubators to drum-up interest on their own. (does not guarantee comments) 02:09:19 ack torgo 02:09:19 torgo, you wanted to suggest an expected protocol between TAG and WICG 02:09:35 torgo: I do think there should some mention of TAG review in WICG process 02:10:02 .. the only people who have this in their process is blink 02:10:12 [other] and Samsung! 02:10:34 .. by requiring something to be in WICG before TAG reivew, could help our throughput 02:10:46 .. but don't want to adversely impact the blink process 02:10:51 .. or to miss things 02:10:58 .. we should proceed careful 02:11:02 q+ to explicitly ask if TAG thinks multi-stage review would make the problem better or worse, or move review to later stage - "Minimum viable API", etc. 02:11:05 q? 02:11:08 .. but want to be able to throttle back and improve design review quality. 02:11:37 torgo: We have a link to multi-stakeholder reviews (in our issue review template) 02:11:43 .. also, where is this work being done? 02:11:54 .. we are tracking venues (WICG, Immersive web, etc.) 02:12:13 torgo: Would love to hear from WICG how TAG can help. 02:12:18 ack ame 02:12:18 AmeliaBR, you wanted to ask about horizontal review beyond TAG 02:12:25 pranjal has joined #wicg 02:12:49 AmeliaBR: standards coming out of W3C not just have TAG, but also a11y, i18n, privacy... 02:12:59 .. how do you incorporate those into the process? 02:13:27 .. e.g., when proposing a new feature, the person may not realize they need these reviews. 02:13:38 .. it's harder to fix later in the process than earlier. 02:13:46 .. want to ensure these conversations happen earlier on. 02:13:51 kimwooglae_ has joined #wicg 02:14:02 ack rbyers 02:14:13 .. people need to be looking critically at these up front 02:14:54 rbyers: I ack the problems I've heard in blink process; want to continue to improve the team.l 02:15:41 q+ to talk about Chromium and the TAG 02:15:44 ack marcos 02:15:46 .. maybe out of scope, but blink really values the expertise on the TAG.. would still love a forum of discussion between blink + TAG. Would love to hear suggestions. 02:15:58 +1 on what Amelia said abbout additional wide review (beyond TAG). The TAG does try to prompt I18N, A11Y and particularly security & privacy review AND spec authors should also be seeking those more in depth reviews as well. 02:15:58 marcosc: to AmeliaBR: good (fantastic) points. 02:16:08 .. PING has asked to be involved earlier. 02:16:24 .. can add TAG into the process 02:16:49 .. to graduate a spec, we do have a step that asks a11y, privacy, etc. to be considered. 02:17:04 .. yes we should go earlier... but incubation *is* earlier in the process. 02:17:40 .. some things ship as origin trials... once things start shipping (for real) then (with Mozilla hat on) this should move into WG fast. 02:17:55 q+ Also I would like to highlight the Web Ethical Principles and encourage people in WICG to consider the social impact of their specs as well. https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/ 02:17:57 ack hober 02:17:59 .. having specs is dangerous, sets expectations with folks. 02:18:07 .. they should just be ideas, explainers, etc. 02:18:26 q- also 02:18:32 q- + 02:18:34 q+ 02:18:34 q? 02:18:38 hober: It would really help clarify WICG doc template to make it even more clear. 02:18:51 q+ 02:19:15 .. TAG is mostly elected body, which results in TAG turnover. 02:19:36 .. leaves unbalanced expertise in the TAG at times. 02:19:51 q+ 02:19:57 .. want to ensure quality of review stays high... so 02:20:27 .. what do you think of TAG transfer to a high-expertise community? e.g., to CSS for a CSS feature? 02:20:41 ack cw 02:20:41 cwilso, you wanted to explicitly ask if TAG thinks multi-stage review would make the problem better or worse, or move review to later stage - "Minimum viable API", etc. 02:20:51 .. could help ensure better review. 02:21:00 q+ 02:21:05 AmeliaBR: sounds good, but then need to find people to do the work... 02:21:27 cwilso: related question: does TAG ask for multiple types of review help? 02:22:10 .. TAG is uniquely suited to look at overall architecture of the platform. I presume this is the best attribute. 02:22:16 q? 02:22:26 .. mentioned to the AC in talk that if we try to capture minimum viable API... 02:22:38 .. the design solves use cases, etc. but this is not captured. 02:22:47 .. (the design might actually work now) 02:23:01 cwilso: On horizontal review: 02:23:29 .. talked in i18n group, but they want to be plugged in at different times. i18n later, and privacy earlier! 02:23:39 .. AB may be revising the process to help there. 02:23:42 ack hadley 02:23:42 hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about Chromium and the TAG 02:23:51 hadleybeeman: to cwilso on particular review: 02:23:53 q- 02:23:56 .. I like that; devils in details 02:24:23 .. we've dived deep into thinks like how promises work, and got feedback that was not what was asked for. 02:24:34 .. they wanted wider integration feedback. 02:24:42 hadleybeeman: to tess on delegate reviews 02:24:53 .. we do delgate to ex-tag and particular experts. 02:25:16 .. e.g., when see CSS, but not reviewed by CSS, triggers concern that review is too early. 02:25:26 hadleybeeman: to rbyers on blink + TAG 02:25:49 .. would be helpful; blink originated reviews are the majority 02:26:02 ack npm 02:26:05 .. need to be sure our attention is balanced across consituentcies 02:26:34 npm: draft specs written in WICG, which is necessary before entering a WG... 02:26:43 marcosc: not necessary, but common practice 02:27:10 npm: web perf has a different point of view. Don't think WICG should just be for explainers. 02:27:17 .. I find TAG reviews useful. 02:27:24 .. How do we measure latency? 02:27:41 .. I might have unreasonable expectations... but some reviews take months to be acknoledged? 02:27:44 ack torgo 02:28:01 torgo: we are trying to improve triage (be responsive to new issues) 02:28:11 .. so filers see that it was noticed. 02:28:37 .. today might get lucky if me or plinss actually adds triage to the agenda. 02:28:55 q+ 02:28:58 .. also some agreed-upon labels would be good. New spec, high-pri, etc.? 02:29:31 .. had new requirements for bots that can automate some of the process to (to get back to issue creators earlier). 02:29:37 .. the TAG hears you. 02:29:40 q? 02:29:48 .. do need to figure out how to throttle reviews too. 02:29:56 torgo: on wide review: 02:30:00 zakim, close the queue 02:30:00 ok, cwilso, the speaker queue is closed 02:30:09 .. TAG created "ethical web principles" earlier this year. 02:30:24 .. for WICG, please look into that and consider social impact according to that doc. 02:30:33 ack marcos 02:30:45 https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/ 02:30:57 marcosc: for the process step.. we should add review of the ethical principles there. 02:31:08 marcosc: on spreading love of reviews: 02:31:16 .. have a pool of experts we can call on. 02:31:22 .. solicit volunteers. 02:31:27 torgo: done today, just informally 02:31:35 marcosc: make it formal. 02:31:49 .. could maintain a list, like at Mozilla does it with lists. 02:32:06 torgo: open to that idea! 02:32:14 ack sangwhan 02:32:19 jackbsteinberg has joined #wicg 02:32:21 sangwhan: on automation side: 02:32:43 .. I started working on automation. might make stricter reqs for filing an issue. 02:32:54 .. if other folks want to be part of bot-trigger, let me know. 02:33:07 .. (me = sangwhan) 02:33:25 zakim, open the queue 02:33:25 ok, cwilso, the speaker queue is open 02:34:02 cwilso: will be circling back with my co-chairs, love to get TAG summary as well. 02:34:12 sangwhan: we don't have a place to host it, so if anyone can sponsor a GPU.. 02:34:16 zakim, agenda? 02:34:16 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 02:34:16 1. TAG and incubation [from Travis] 02:34:16 2. Best practices for complex incubation projects [from Travis] 02:34:42 zakim, close agendum 1 02:34:42 agendum 1, TAG and incubation, closed 02:34:43 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 02:34:43 2. Best practices for complex incubation projects [from Travis] 02:35:11 zakim, take up agendum 2 02:35:11 agendum 2. "Best practices for complex incubation projects" taken up [from Travis] 02:36:07 zakim, choose a victim 02:36:07 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Dan 02:36:18 Scribe: jyasskin 02:36:43 AmeliaBR: I proposed this topic. "Complex" incubation projects. 02:36:56 .. Things that are too big for WICG as currently defined. Great host for focused proposals. 02:37:08 prushforth has joined #wicg 02:37:14 .. But lots of bigger projects that need lots of subject matter experts, and the scope isn't a single element/attribute/API. 02:37:23 present+ 02:37:43 .. W3C has had CGs for ages for doing this, and there are lots that are incubating specs. Some are affiliated with a WG, some independent. Don't have a clear process for how those other CGs interact with the WICG. 02:38:04 .. I think purpose of WICG is to encourage incubation as a general process idea, in addition to hosting smaller projects. 02:38:05 q+ 02:38:10 q+ to lay out goal of WICG and historical inception 02:38:24 q+ 02:38:27 .. But in practice, don't think there's been a lot of work making those connections between WICG review/infra/Discourse and the other CGs. 02:39:02 .. Nigel Merritt isn't here but made some comments to cwilso that there's a lot of busywork when setting up repos and transferring things. WICG should document processes that other CGs could adopt wholesale. 02:39:29 .. Talked about SVG CG. Hard to get initial discussions happening, and we should build on the WICG discourse, to get more people looking at discussion before it moves to the CG. 02:39:31 q+ 02:39:37 .. How do you think interaction might work? 02:39:41 ack travis 02:39:57 Travis: I imagine WICG folks understand that we're not an exclusive incubation community. 02:40:24 .. When personally faced with the decision of "here's a small feature; where should I take it?", the answer comes from "which community best serves the needs of this feature?" 02:40:34 .. Edit Context API: Should it go into WICG? Or where else could it go? 02:40:46 .. Editing TF community seemed right, so that's where it went. 02:41:05 .. I would love to tease out the principles of incubation and shop them to other CGs who could apply them. 02:41:12 .. Not trying to monopolize incubation. 02:41:50 q+ 02:41:52 .. Finally, on business angle: this group was created because large orgs have trouble joining a new CG because they need to ask lawyers. This one has an appropriately large scope to reduce that friction. 02:41:54 ack cw 02:41:54 cwilso, you wanted to lay out goal of WICG and historical inception 02:42:42 cwilso: Want to tack on that the historical reason for the WICG is the busywork of setting up repos, and from Adrian Bateman that when a rep joins a CG they have to go through legal, and having one frees them from going through legal every time they want to talk about one API. 02:42:55 .. Underscore that you don't have to do incubation at the WICG. 02:43:13 .. Conversation in the last hour concluded that we're about to end up with lots more process. 02:43:32 .. Immersive Web WG has a paired CG to do incubations, and we'll want to use the same timings as the WICG to trigger wide review. 02:44:03 .. Discourse: Asked yesterday whether Discourse is the right tool, because it's a separate tool, and this is the only thing we use it for in the Web Platform. 02:44:11 .. Should we use a proposals repo with issues? 02:44:14 q? 02:44:19 ack scheib 02:44:29 scheib: AmeliaBR thanks for raising the topic. 02:44:46 .. I want to better understand negatives of using WICG for complex specs. 02:45:13 .. Larger projects need deep subject matter experts, and we've heard how individual CGs have challenges. What's the downside of WICG? 02:45:29 AmeliaBR: 1: WICG is scoped to the web, so since SVG isn't just for the web, it didn't fit. 02:45:44 .. 2: With subject matter experts, don't want to make them join a group with lots of stuff they're not interested in. 02:45:58 .. Many new CGs are 1-1 with a WG, which keeps the subject matter connection. 02:46:09 .. Maps CG coordinates outside the W3C. 02:46:37 Travis: HEard that "hey we're expecting a series of related specs, and the WICG has no grouping mechanism." If you great a new organization, you get a group to spawn multiple specs. 02:46:43 s/great/create/ 02:46:44 ack yoav 02:47:05 yoav: Asking about discourse. What did you mean? Using Discourse as a way to funnel input? 02:47:44 AmeliaBR: SVG CG trying to be like WICG for SVG things. Accept new proposals. Ask whether something's a good idea. Find a larger community to comment on things, rather than making people join the SVG CG to even know that new things are being proposed. 02:48:09 .. Nigel's TimedText proposal shows that doing your work off in your own community isn't a good way to get new members or make connections with other folks doing the same thing.