16:02:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-dive
16:02:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-aria-dive-irc
16:02:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:02:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
16:02:50 <dmontalvo> dmontalvo has joined #aria-dive
16:09:22 <jamesn> spectranaut_: Want to lock down process for merging
16:09:44 <jamesn> spectranaut_: Suggested not merging unless implemented
16:09:53 <jamesn> spectranaut_: This is what JS does
16:10:08 <jamesn> spectranaut_: HTML requires implementation commitment not implementation
16:10:34 <jamesn> spectranaut_: jcraig prefers that we merge when we have consensus but with a note that it hasn't been implemented yet
16:10:55 <jamesn> spectranaut_: can't test all of aria so can't rely on just linking to tests
16:11:21 <jamesn> spectranaut_: goal is to ease implementors but allow folks reading the spec to know what is implemented
16:11:35 <jamesn> spectranaut_: under discussion particularly if we move to evergreen
16:11:45 <jamesn> q?
16:11:50 <jcraig> issue that spawned the deep dive https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2055
16:12:38 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria-dive
16:12:39 <jamesn> jcraig: some more background could be useful
16:12:50 <jamesn> jcraig: issue that spawned is #2055
16:12:56 <Jem> present+
16:13:00 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2055
16:13:56 <jamesn> jcraig: wanted the spec to be more permissive - but group went a different way adding name from heading. PR went through review many years ago then counterpart issues filed - bugs filed against user agents etc. Trying to follow process
16:14:31 <jamesn> jcraig: PR still not merged, bugs not fixed. Reason brought this up - ideally would have wpt tests merged ahead of implemetation
16:14:36 <spectranaut_> q+
16:15:23 <jamesn> jcraig: seemed unintentionally circular. not sure how to move forward
16:15:32 <jamesn> jcraig: spectranaut_ proposed a few different options
16:15:47 <jamesn> jcraig: have a couple of different proposals
16:16:09 <jcraig> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2055#issuecomment-1765414562
16:17:43 <jamesn> jcraig: effectively what I would like is write spec prose - get signoff. Including notes with links to details including wpt tests etc. Point is it would unblock downstream changes.
16:18:41 <jamesn> q+
16:19:05 <jamesn> q+ to ask how this can work for features which impact large parts of the spec
16:19:22 <Jem> only difference from Val's two suggestion seems to be only note section. is that right?
16:19:41 <jamesn> spectranaut_: process I suggested is that have a slight preference for a spec which only has implemented stuff in it
16:20:59 <jamesn> ack spectranaut_
16:21:04 <jamesn> q+ Matt
16:21:19 <Jem> It would be also great we have one place - index page - to go which one is implemneted or not.
16:22:27 <jamesn> spectranaut_: 2nd proposal is to write spec prose and get signoff from the wg. Then write and land wpt tests. Has precedent in wpt itself - each spec follows their own way of landing changes. Then implementors have something to go off
16:22:37 <jamesn> spectranaut_: at that time you open bugs on browsers
16:22:58 <Jem> who would write and land wpt test? valerie or james?
16:23:06 <jamesn> spectranaut_: then when have at least 1 implementation AND commitments can then land it
16:23:17 <jamesn> q?
16:23:25 <jamesn> q+ jcraig
16:23:51 <Jem> q+
16:25:35 <jamesn> ack Jamie
16:25:41 <jamesn> ack jam
16:25:41 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask how this can work for features which impact large parts of the spec
16:26:06 <jamesn> q+ aaron
16:26:06 <spectranaut_> q+ aaron
16:26:15 <jamesn> ack Matt
16:26:23 <jamesn> Matt: 3 questions
16:26:59 <Jem> q+ to ask about the ownership of each process such as wpt and how and when would you be ableto confirm "commitment"
16:27:10 <jamesn> Matt: When there are changes from 2 different PRs which affects multiple parts of the spec someone would have to distinguish between them
16:28:09 <jcraig> q+ to ask how it the PR proposal could work for large changes... concerns are: multiple PRs, implementers time constraints (we're potentially adding confusion for the front line engineers)
16:28:16 <jamesn> Matt: would need to be some way of indicating which changes to word in the spec are related to each feature change when there are multiple that are not yet implemented
16:28:31 <jamesn> Matt: don't have that problem in spectranaut_  proposal
16:28:42 <jamesn> Matt: so it is easy to read and understand
16:28:57 <jcraig> q+ to mention conflicts with multi-year PRs
16:28:58 <jamesn> Matt: when we go evergreen is the editors draft the evergreen spec
16:30:06 <jamesn> jamesn: normally yes but doesn't have to be
16:30:40 <jamesn> Matt: is the fundamental problem that it is hard to make inter-spec dependencies
16:30:41 <jcraig> ack me
16:30:41 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to ask how it the PR proposal could work for large changes... concerns are: multiple PRs, implementers time constraints (we're potentially adding confusion for
16:30:44 <Zakim> ... the front line engineers) and to mention conflicts with multi-year PRs
16:31:49 <jamesn> jcraig: opposite is that I can't see how proposal 1 works for anything with large changes
16:32:13 <jamesn> jcraig: concern is that have features which hang around for a long time
16:32:42 <jamesn> jcraig: potentially discourages additional contributors to WG
16:32:58 <jamesn> jcraig: ideally the spec PR could reference accname
16:33:16 <jamesn> jcraig: and vice versa
16:33:19 <spectranaut_> q+ the work of contributing to aria includes implementations, so I don't think its a problem for normative PRs to take until implementation to land, even for newer spec authors
16:34:21 <jamesn> q+ Matt
16:34:47 <jamesn> jcraig: merge conflicts is one of the big issues
16:35:13 <spectranaut_> q+
16:35:16 <jamesn> ack Jem
16:35:16 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask about the ownership of each process such as wpt and how and when would you be ableto confirm "commitment"
16:36:09 <jamesn> jcraig: core differnce between proposals the implemeting engineers would not have the cross referencing issue
16:36:31 <jamesn> jcraig: we have something in the spec that is known not to be implmented
16:37:21 <Jem> q-
16:37:34 <jamesn> ack aaron
16:37:44 <jamesn> ack Matt
16:37:47 <Jem> q+
16:38:15 <jamesn> q+
16:38:32 <jamesn> Matt: linking is a technical issue so want a technical solution
16:39:17 <jamesn> Matt: merge conflicts is a non technical issue
16:39:37 <jamesn> Matt: you shouldn't feel like once it is merged it is done - you can't move on until it is implemented
16:40:00 <jamesn> Matt: it is important that someone leading a change moves it from start to end
16:40:19 <jamesn> Matt: if implmentations are really slow on small changes then that might create a problem
16:40:49 <Jem> one way to think about this topic may be categorizing complex issues vs simple issue and each have the different process.
16:40:57 <jamesn> Matt: idea... for the specs with most inderdepencies
16:41:32 <jamesn> Matt: what if they were all in the same repo - then you could have a PR with links from each
16:42:39 <Jem> I like the one repo idea! interconnectivity of the ARIA work.
16:43:04 <Jem> united world
16:43:15 <jcraig> Q+
16:43:22 <jamesn> Matt: could solve the technical challenge of linking across documents
16:43:30 <jamesn> ack spectranaut_
16:43:41 <jamesn> spectranaut_: responding to 3 points
16:43:55 <jcraig> q+ to add-on… We could keep the issue tracker repos separately, but have all the PRs in the main ARIA repo...
16:44:29 <jamesn> spectranaut_: new contributors would hopefully not run across large issues like these
16:45:05 <jamesn> spectranaut_: clear issues on browsers - Need to add the links to all the specs in browser PRs
16:45:51 <jamesn> spectranaut_: it is true the links between specs wouldn't work but language in issues is
16:45:59 <jcraig> q+ aaron
16:46:18 <Jem> q-
16:46:34 <jamesn> spectranaut_: merge conflicts would help
16:47:52 <Jem>  /me I think we are talking about the base problem, ownership, commitment, "sheperding" which block us to move on.
16:47:52 <jamesn> Matt: if small changes haven't been implemented soon then it is maybe a problem
16:48:13 <jamesn> Matt: would rather a PR with merge conficts that is 2 years old
16:48:23 <jamesn> ack Jamie
16:48:27 <jamesn> ack jamesn
16:48:52 <jamesn> ack jcraig
16:48:52 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to add-on… We could keep the issue tracker repos separately, but have all the PRs in the main ARIA repo...
16:48:53 <spectranaut_> Jem: I want to hear your thoughts about those thing
16:49:40 <jamesn> jcraig: I think your proposal could solve the largest issues
16:49:53 <jamesn> jcraig: issue trackers can be separate like WPT
16:50:02 <jamesn> jcraig: could move the source files to aria
16:50:34 <jamesn> jcraig: could work
16:50:49 <jamesn> jcraig: pointing to one PR could maybe work.
16:51:01 <Jem> I like warning idea a lot.
16:51:03 <spectranaut_> +1 to link to tests, good idea about link to issues
16:51:37 <Jem> warning idea is also similar to "current status"
16:52:12 <jamesn> jcraig: for things that aren't testable could have links still
16:52:18 <jamesn> ack aa
16:53:23 <jcraig> add an "implementation notes" section to each relevant feature?
16:53:29 <jamesn> aaron: imagining the different things - some things change an already implemented feature. Like the idea of flagging - don't like fixing merge conflicts. Wonder how flags will work with the messy reality
16:53:31 <Jem> flagging = warning = current status?
16:54:01 <jamesn> aaron: each change is interesting in its own right
16:54:04 <jamesn> q?
16:54:33 <Jem> flagging = warning = current status = implementation note?
16:56:05 <Jem> +1 to explore the idea of one repo
16:56:16 <Jem> how about warning?
16:58:01 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:58:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-aria-dive-minutes.html dmontalvo
17:00:36 <dmontalvo> Meeting: ARIA Dee Dive -- Merge Process
17:00:38 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-aria-dive-minutes.html dmontalvo
17:01:27 <dmontalvo> s/Dee /Deep /
17:01:29 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-aria-dive-minutes.html dmontalvo
17:03:19 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria-dive