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