20:04:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #incubation
20:05:00 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/12-incubation-irc
20:05:00 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, do not leave
20:05:01 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:05:02 <tidoust> tidoust has joined #incubation
20:05:02 <tpac-breakout-bot> Meeting: Incubation: the on ramp to new work
20:05:02 <tpac-breakout-bot> Chair: Chris Wilson
20:05:02 <tpac-breakout-bot> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024/issues/24
20:05:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #incubation
20:05:03 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, clear agenda
20:05:03 <Zakim> agenda cleared
20:05:03 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe
20:05:04 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
20:05:04 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
20:05:04 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
20:05:04 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session
20:05:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 added
20:05:06 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Discussion
20:05:06 <Zakim> agendum 4 added
20:05:06 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues
20:05:07 <Zakim> agendum 5 added
20:05:07 <tpac-breakout-bot> tpac-breakout-bot has left #incubation
21:46:47 <dom> dom has joined #incubation
21:56:12 <cwilso> present+
21:56:45 <bkardell_> bkardell_ has joined #incubation
21:59:20 <dom> present+
21:59:40 <Dingwei___> Dingwei___ has joined #incubation
21:59:48 <Dingwei___> present+
21:59:58 <jyasskin> jyasskin has joined #incubation
22:00:04 <jyasskin> present+
22:00:32 <plh> present+
22:00:45 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #incubation
22:01:15 <cpn> cpn has joined #incubation
22:01:15 <csarven> csarven has joined #incubation
22:01:18 <astearns> astearns has joined #incubation
22:01:20 <cpn> present+ Chris_Needham
22:01:43 <tidoust> present+ Francois_Daoust
22:02:13 <cwilso> zakim, take up agendum 1
22:02:13 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Pick a scribe -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
22:02:24 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
22:02:25 <tantek> tantek has joined #incubation
22:02:26 <bkardell_> present+
22:02:28 <csarven> present+ Sarven Capadisli
22:02:28 <fantasai> present+
22:02:37 <cwilso> zakim, take up agendum 2
22:02:37 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
22:02:47 <fantasai> Topic: Administrative
22:02:53 <cwilso> Code of Conduct: https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/
22:02:53 <cwilso> Antitrust policy: https://www.w3.org/policies/antitrust-2024/
22:03:10 <andreubotella> andreubotella has joined #incubation
22:03:16 <fantasai> cwilso: Be inclusive, and nice to other people
22:03:25 <fantasai> ... if any problem, contact me or Team reps
22:03:29 <cwilso> zakim, take up agendum 3
22:03:29 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Goal of this session -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
22:03:45 <cwilso> AB incubation intro: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/blob/master/documents/Incubation.md
22:03:50 <fantasai> cwilso: Goal of this session is, we've had an open conversation in AB
22:03:57 <fantasai> ... finally got around to writing some thoughts about it
22:04:01 <fantasai> ... What is the goal of incubation?
22:04:13 <fantasai> ... wanted to have breakout session to get more perspectives
22:04:25 <fantasai> ... will have more breakouts, had one at TPAC, another will be at AC
22:04:33 <tantek> present+
22:04:38 <fantasai> ... Lots of perspectives on how incubation should work, and when incubation is done
22:04:43 <fantasai> ... summarized some questions in the document
22:04:46 <cwilso> How should incubation work? How should an incubation group be communicating their work to a broader venue to ease acceptance as a WG deliverable?
22:04:46 <cwilso> How should Working Group charters refer to incubation and future work? What best practices should we define for referring to incubations? What kind of timeline for deliverables are a good idea when work migrates into a WG?
22:04:46 <cwilso> What expectation of incubation should there be before work is accepted into a WG, or into its charter? At what stage of "doneness" should work move from an incubation venue to a working group? How can we identify the "right" time to migrate an incubation to a WG?
22:04:46 <cwilso> What success criteria should there be for incubations? What defines success in this context? What happens to incubations that are successfully defined and adopted in one engine, but not picked up by any other implementers?
22:05:20 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm particularly interested in third set of questions: what is the expectations before going to WG? How do we identify the right time?
22:05:27 <fantasai> ... we've seen cases where incubation is pushed into WG too son
22:05:41 <fantasai> ... or we incubate for so long that by the time we move to WG, it's too baked
22:06:05 <dom> q+
22:06:13 <fantasai> cwilso: Want to hear what other people think. How can the AB, as shepherd of Process etc, "incubate" this idea? :)
22:06:31 <cwilso> ack next
22:06:38 <bkardell_> q+
22:06:44 <fantasai> dom: Some discussion at earlier breakout on Web Features
22:07:01 <fantasai> ... François ran analysis on which features are defined in specs still in incubation, or still in WD, that are already widely implemented
22:07:18 <fantasai> ... it's a bit of an anti-pattern, because stuff gets shipped and not much room for improving them through standardization process
22:07:40 <fantasai> ... When we can, systematically detecting and discussing these situations, would be good
22:08:03 <fantasai> ... Systematically expose these cases, same way that transition requests are a place to systematically expose issues with reviews, implementations, or testing
22:08:17 <cwilso> q+
22:08:32 <fantasai> ... More generally, create opportunities where this *has* to be discussed by someone, reviewed by the community
22:08:42 <fantasai> ... that seems like a pattern worth investigating
22:08:45 <cwilso> ack next
22:09:05 <fantasai> bkardell_: There's a problem that's the same regardles of what kind of incubation is
22:09:12 <fantasai> ... I have experienced a few different kidns
22:09:25 <fantasai> ... We had incubation for 'inert', and didn't have for ':focus-visible' (just done in CSSWG)
22:09:32 <fantasai> ... I'm also part of Open UI, part of WICG
22:09:44 <dom> -> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/12-web-features-minutes.html minutes of web-features breakout where related data collection was presented and discussed
22:09:48 <fantasai> ... a lot happens there that winds up in WHATWG or CSSWG or some other group
22:10:05 <fantasai> ... Problem I see in both cases, one of the big things that's nice about incubation is, there's not confusion that this is somehow already blessed
22:10:16 <fantasai> ... nobody has agreed to spend the resources or time on it yet
22:10:21 <fantasai> ... we're not sure, encourage exploration
22:10:27 <fantasai> ... but exploration takes time, usually a lot of it
22:10:34 <cwilso> +1
22:10:34 <fantasai> ... and when it does get somewhere, it's often the result of a lot of work
22:10:46 <fantasai> ... and when feedback comes back "you made a mistake in step 1", that's offputting
22:11:00 <fantasai> ... especially for people who aren't used to standards process
22:11:24 <fantasai> ... That's a challenge, and so we've been adapting in how soon we try to get checks
22:11:46 <fantasai> ... we're figuring this out through the pain of experience
22:11:53 <jyasskin> q+
22:12:03 <fantasai> ... we don't want things staying unchecked in incubation too long, even if not ready to transition yet
22:12:05 <cwilso> ack next
22:12:11 <tantek> q?
22:12:32 <fantasai> cwilso: To Dom's point about "incubations" getting shipped without standardization, without discussing
22:12:50 <fantasai> ... tough part is when gets reviewed, exploration takes time, but review also takes time
22:13:07 <fantasai> ... you don't want to create a perfectly crafted document only to have someone say "hey, your foundation is wrong"
22:13:22 <fantasai> ... Today, with Chromium, the Intent process tries to make sure we get review by *someone*
22:13:35 <fantasai> ... but challenge is exploration takes time, review takes time
22:13:38 <fantasai> ... getting attention is challenging
22:13:58 <fantasai> ... in WHATWG, we implemented "stages", taking TC39 stages and use it as a way to get attention on features earlier
22:14:10 <dom> q+ re processing time of reviews, inspiration from "intents to *"
22:14:10 <fantasai> ... "this is semi-baked, please take a look"
22:14:16 <fantasai> ... hoping that helps
22:14:31 <fantasai> cwilso: Two core problems: a) not confusion that this is blessed because "incubation"
22:14:53 <fantasai> ... plenty of people actually have a problem like this, incubations ship and people say "this standard is developed at W3C"
22:14:59 <bkardell_> are there incubation stages, or is there a stage that it should move out of incubation into a wg?
22:15:06 <fantasai> ... I've given our DevRel guidance, saying something is a standard is a very high bar
22:15:14 <fantasai> ... but need to stay vigilant
22:15:32 <csarven> q+ on implementation experience
22:15:38 <fantasai> ... Key challenge is, who defines what "too long" is? When does it move to standardization
22:15:50 <fantasai> ... If only one implementation, and don't have a second implementation lined up, should that move into standardization?
22:15:52 <cwilso> ack next
22:16:04 <fantasai> jyasskin: Listening to bkardell, some unformed ideas
22:16:07 <dom> q+ to react on "too long" in incubation
22:16:13 <fantasai> ... appropriate length of incubation probably depends on the feature
22:16:27 <fantasai> ... some, you mention to WG or browser engines, and they say "yes that's a good idea" even if hasn't been incubated at all
22:16:32 <fantasai> ... maybe should adopt to WG right away
22:16:43 <fantasai> ... others need to build up support for them, and those get adopted later
22:16:55 <cwilso> qq+
22:16:59 <fantasai> ... And some of them, one browser thinks is great and ships, and others disagree and refuse to adopt in WG
22:17:18 <fantasai> ... These are relatively stable, but could shift if backwards-compatible change or change is worth breaking compat
22:17:33 <fantasai> ... Then we have things like SOLID, multiple implementations, and already de-facto standards -- that's too late
22:17:40 <fantasai> ... but we also need to make a strategy to deal with it
22:17:45 <cwilso> +1
22:17:46 <fantasai> ... because people will make mistakes in both directions
22:18:12 <bkardell_> q+
22:18:13 <cwilso> ack next
22:18:14 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to jyasskin
22:18:18 <fantasai> ... cwilso's document says "here's how to do incubation" but maybe we need different categories, and expect that features in different categories can follow different paths
22:18:31 <fantasai> cwilso: Yes, it was a brain-dump document from me. It is not intended to be the One True Thing people should do.
22:18:46 <fantasai> ... encourage to file issues in ab repo against this document
22:18:52 <fantasai> ... I will work to refine this document
22:19:03 <fantasai> cwilso: Also, I messed up by not doing introductions!
22:19:14 <fantasai> Subtopic: Introductions
22:19:26 <tantek> q?
22:19:30 <fantasai> cwilso: Chris Wilson, Google, longtime [many things standards]
22:19:39 <cwilso> ack next
22:19:40 <Zakim> dom, you wanted to discuss processing time of reviews, inspiration from "intents to *" and to react on "too long" in incubation
22:19:41 <fantasai> jyasskin: Jeffrey Yasskin, co-lead Web Standards Team with Chris
22:20:01 <fantasai> dom: Dominique Hazael-Massieu, W3C Team
22:20:10 <fantasai> Subtopic: Continuing the dicussion
22:20:14 <fantasai> dom: [missed]
22:20:32 <fantasai> ... suppose we have a monitoring script that watches features in incubation, and if a feature is implemented in two different engines
22:20:42 <fantasai> ... and it asks the spec editor what are their plans for standardization?
22:20:52 <fantasai> ... doesn't mean you *have* to transition to WG, but you have to document your thinking about it
22:20:58 <fantasai> ... and have the community discuss and maybe change your mind
22:21:20 <fantasai> ... I think I like the systematicity of Intent to *
22:21:30 <fantasai> ... Providing opportunities for these discussions to happen
22:21:41 <fantasai> dom: You say sometimes it's hard to know what's too long for incubation
22:21:50 <fantasai> ... but something shipping in all major browsers and still in "incubation" is a failure
22:22:04 <cwilso> +1
22:22:17 <fantasai> ... I agree that strength of signal can be discussed, but if every single browser ships a feature, then surely that should have gotten to a proper standardization review process earlier
22:22:21 <tantek> q+ to first point out the other end of incubating too long is too little, history of specifiction RECs, second ask what does implementer/implementation "interest" mean for claiming incubation success e.g. niche implementation, intern project, open source library in isolation, user visible/usable implementation, web user-relevant implementation? and third, lag in incubated->WG started
22:22:25 <cwilso> ack next
22:22:26 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to comment on implementation experience
22:22:49 <fantasai> csarven: Sarven, working on social web stuff for 10+ years, most recently in SOLID (since 2015) and also Social Web WG
22:22:55 <cwilso> WHATWG Stages reference, BTW:https://whatwg.org/stages
22:23:19 <fantasai> csarven: I've been chair of SOLID since 2019, recently transferred to new individuals
22:23:28 <cwilso> WHATWG Stages reference, BTW: https://whatwg.org/stages
22:23:36 <fantasai> ... the work in the CG, we started in 2018
22:23:47 <fantasai> s|WHATWG Stages reference, BTW:https://whatwg.org/stages||
22:23:51 <jyasskin> Sorry for mischaracterizing the details of Solid.
22:24:14 <fantasai> csarven: to characterize implementation work... it's important for WGs and CGs
22:24:21 <fantasai> ... often there are different ways of designing something
22:24:32 <fantasai> ... and a group could slap something together and say "it's done, ready for WG"
22:24:43 <fantasai> ... but personally find that's not a strong indicator, just because spec seems ready is fit for WG
22:24:57 <fantasai> ... the language or type of things that Process outlines on adequate implementations applies also to CGs
22:25:23 <fantasai> ... Question about how should CG communicate incubation to ??
22:25:37 <fantasai> ... When chartering, look at incubation experience that a group has shows a lot about how mature that work is
22:25:50 <fantasai> ... it doesn't need to be flawless, every detail covered, doesn't leave much room to improve
22:26:07 <fantasai> ... but signal that the group didn't just write a document and think this is fit for the world or the wild
22:26:28 <fantasai> ... There should be a lot of experimentation, should be fit enough that people are using it e.g. themselves
22:26:43 <fantasai> ... IndieWeb has a good view: build what you need, and use it, then you know it's real
22:26:52 <fantasai> ... That's a stronger signal than the spec itself.
22:27:09 <fantasai> ... Developing something that's real enough.
22:27:10 <cwilso> ack next
22:27:56 <fantasai> bkardell_: Part of reason we're here is, there are examples of specs that have words that aren't implemented anywhere, and show no indication they will be anytime soon
22:28:10 <fantasai> ... and stuff that's mostly interoperably implemented that isn't in a WG, e.g. subset of Web Speech
22:28:25 <fantasai> ... that happened in incubation early on, in CG
22:28:46 <fantasai> ... eventually got to where everyone had an implementation
22:28:50 <dom> in an ... Incubator Group as they were called :)
22:29:05 <fantasai> ... and third classification, there's an interoperable subset, and there are some words, but doesn't really reflect reality of what's implemented or not implemented
22:29:13 <fantasai> ... That's where Web Speech is, and where MathML was
22:29:28 <fantasai> ... Sometimes writing those things is difficult, because they were built without a mind towards how the Web Platform really works
22:29:36 <fantasai> ... need to bring people back to drawing board a bit
22:29:57 <jyasskin> q+ to speculate about template "reports" for incubation groups to produce and update as they repeatedly propose that a WG adopt their stuff
22:29:59 <fantasai> ... How do you have checkpoints that allow people to use time effectively, and also respectful of other people?
22:30:18 <astearns> q++
22:30:36 <fantasai> ... In CSSWG, occasionally suggest incubation. Most things picked up by CSSWG early, and occasionally push things to incubation
22:30:40 <astearns> qq+
22:30:51 <cwilso> q-+
22:30:51 <fantasai> ... but many times pick up things to spec that aren't ready to be implemented
22:31:14 <fantasai> bkardell_: We've tried many things, Chrome Status, etc. But missing something that lets us gauge when it's a good time to check in
22:31:25 <cwilso> ack next
22:31:26 <fantasai> ... and not over-taxing
22:31:27 <csarven> jyasskin No worries, am aware how it may be coming across to some depending on entry points and what not =)
22:31:27 <Zakim> astearns, you wanted to react to bkardell_
22:31:34 <fantasai> astearns: Alan Stearns, current co-chair of CSSWG
22:31:45 <fantasai> ... I want to caution on drawing conclusions from CSSWG incubation to other things that need WGs
22:31:47 <cwilso> q+
22:31:48 <dom> a possible CSS example of "incubating too long": https://drafts.csswg.org/css-env-1/ ships everywhere, but is still an ED
22:31:53 <fantasai> ... CSS is special, we have a charter that has all of CSS in scope
22:32:00 <fantasai> ... new work automatically belongs to the charter
22:32:22 <fantasai> ... for our internal incubation, no clear inflection point for when it becomes part of a charter or not
22:32:27 <cwilso> ack next
22:32:27 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to first point out the other end of incubating too long is too little, history of specifiction RECs, second ask what does implementer/implementation "interest"
22:32:27 <Zakim> ... mean for claiming incubation success e.g. niche implementation, intern project, open source library in isolation, user visible/usable implementation, web user-relevant
22:32:27 <Zakim> ... implementation? and third, lag in incubated->WG started
22:32:51 <fantasai> tantek: Tantek Çelik, Mozilla AC rep, AB, and longtime CSSWG contributor, and past co-chair of Social Web WG with csarven
22:33:06 <fantasai> tantek: Buiding on what bkardell talked about, the historical problem that incubation is designed to solve
22:33:17 <fantasai> ... as much as we have problem of incubating too long, old problem was no incubation at all
22:33:22 <fantasai> ... so a lot of RECs that are specifiction
22:33:36 <fantasai> ... outstanding exercise to go through /TR and identify
22:34:00 <fantasai> ... Keep in mind that incubation was a way to try out, experiment with ideas, without having to use heavyweight mechanisms that get to REC without implementations
22:34:16 <fantasai> tantek: We talk about implementation interest: are 2 or more interested, or think it's a good idea?
22:34:31 <fantasai> ... questions wrt getting to REC, thats a problem for once in WG
22:34:37 <fantasai> ... but getting out of incubation
22:34:43 <fantasai> ... how serious does an implementer have to be?
22:34:59 <fantasai> ... if it's a random Open Source library somewhere, or does it have to be a user-downloadable implementation that they can play with?
22:35:24 <fantasai> ... does it have to be a broadly usable Web impleemtnation, like browser implementation, or are niche implementations enough?
22:35:38 <fantasai> ... start as pet projects or personal websites, and propose to browser?
22:35:45 <fantasai> ... Idk the right answer, it's a quesiton.
22:35:49 <fantasai> s/siton/stion/
22:36:22 <fantasai> tantek: Then there's still a huge lag that "this has incubated" and "WG has started, and we can publish a WD"
22:36:29 <fantasai> ... Example is the Privacy WG.
22:36:40 <fantasai> ... Things that have been incubated a long time, and still don't have a WG.
22:37:02 <fantasai> ... If we wait until everything is *ready*, until we're completely confident that something is done, we have to wait again before we can produce a WD
22:37:05 <dom> [the new FO process isn't helping keeping that lag low :/ ]
22:37:21 <fantasai> ... Might need to consider velocity, and start the WG chartering process earlier
22:37:30 <cwilso> ack next
22:37:33 <jyasskin> scribe+
22:37:36 <fantasai> ... so that when it's incubated, the specification work can start within weeks rather than many months
22:37:55 <jyasskin> fantasai: I agree with Jeffrey that there are lots of categories, and we need to handle different ones differently.
22:38:21 <dom> who is "you" in "you should have that conversation", though?
22:38:23 <jyasskin> ... If you're at the point that a major implementer, even 1, is ready to ship, and you haven't had the conversation of whether it should be on the standards track, you should have that conversation. Once you deploy, it's hard to make any changes.
22:38:43 <bkardell_> fantasai: you mean not behind a flag, or even behind a flag?
22:38:44 <jyasskin> ... Once it's on the standards track, you get broader review, engagement, before it's locked down. Don't wait until 2 implementations are ready before moving to WG.
22:38:53 <jyasskin> ... Once they're ready, they're impatient. Shift earlier.
22:38:53 <cwilso> ack next
22:38:54 <Zakim> jyasskin, you wanted to speculate about template "reports" for incubation groups to produce and update as they repeatedly propose that a WG adopt their stuff
22:38:54 <jyasskin> scribe-
22:39:16 <fantasai> jyasskin: TAG produced a template-explainer to help build explainer documents, to make it easier for them to review proposals
22:39:21 <fantasai> ... those are good output for incubations
22:39:38 <fantasai> ... I suspect this implementation report is a good output to inform AC of whether something is ready to be chartered
22:39:47 <fantasai> ... maybe one output of AB's incubation effort is such templates
22:40:15 <fantasai> ... incubations, instead of asking "are we completely finished", should be asking their constitutency -- AC, engines, whoever -- "is this ready, do you support this?"
22:40:22 <tantek> q?
22:40:27 <fantasai> ... if no, then keep going and try to answer questions in the next version of their documents
22:40:32 <dom> q+
22:40:44 <fantasai> ... but always have this proposal ready, so that if notice that ready to adopt to WG, then ready
22:40:51 <cwilso> ack next
22:40:51 <tantek> q++ to respond to fantasai, no one is proposing 2+ implementations for "being incubated", key is prototype + interest
22:40:57 <fantasai> ... Asking is good, can inform the next version of the documents
22:41:09 <dom> qq+ tantek  to respond to fantasai, no one is proposing 2+ implementations for "being incubated", key is prototype + interest
22:41:14 <dom> q- +
22:41:17 <tantek> q-
22:41:18 <tantek> qq+ to respond to fantasai, no one is proposing 2+ implementations for "being incubated", key is prototype + interest
22:41:36 <fantasai> cwilso: By end of incubation, you may have one subcommunity that supports the feature/area. But goal of moving into full standardization track is to build consensus across the *entire* Web community
22:41:47 <plh> q+
22:41:50 <fantasai> ... Everyone has to buy into this is a problem worth solving, and this is the right solution.
22:42:03 <fantasai> ... Btw, I'm also on WHATWG Steering Group and wrote up the Stages document
22:42:09 <fantasai> ... Stages are checkpoints
22:42:19 <tantek> q+ to also respond to cwilso, should it be the entire "web community"? should W3C not pursue "niche" web standards? like is/was Social Web niche when we did it? Is ActivityPub still niche?
22:42:24 <fantasai> ... but to take off many of my hats... WHATWG is purposefully engine-controlled
22:42:24 <jyasskin> WHATWG Stages: https://whatwg.org/stages
22:42:38 <fantasai> ... it's a requirement for 2 engines to be interested
22:42:55 <fantasai> ... requires browser cabal to buy into something, that it's incubated enough, to move to standardization track
22:43:22 <fantasai> ... I do believe absolutely that we should make sure that when anyone tries to ship anything, reviews we do internally, make sure we've had that conversation
22:43:33 <fantasai> ... and if that conversation is still ongoing, we try not to ship something where the conversation is still ongoing
22:43:37 <tantek> s/browser cabal/browser engines
22:43:44 <fantasai> ... but challenge is when we can't get that attention
22:43:55 <fantasai> ... we have a community that wants to solve the problem, but can't get engines' attention
22:44:06 <fantasai> ... we've incubated as far as we can, but no attention... do we move it into a WG?
22:44:11 <fantasai> ... let it sit for a decade?
22:44:16 <fantasai> ... I'm not positive if that's right or wrong
22:44:35 <fantasai> ... We may need to have features that do sit in a WG, on a real standardization track, for longer
22:44:43 <cwilso> ack next
22:44:44 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to react to cwilso to respond to fantasai, no one is proposing 2+ implementations for "being incubated", key is prototype + interest and to also respond to
22:44:44 <Zakim> ... cwilso, should it be the entire "web community"? should W3C not pursue "niche" web standards? like is/was Social Web niche when we did it? Is ActivityPub still niche?
22:44:56 <cwilso> s/cabal/vendors/
22:44:59 <fantasai> tantek: I don't think anyone proposes that we need 2+ implementations to exit incubation
22:45:14 <bkardell_> q+
22:45:20 <fantasai> ... but *interest*
22:45:41 <fantasai> ... if multiple implementers are interested, and hopefully a prototype, then good to land into a WG and iterate there
22:45:51 <fantasai> ... may or may not reach success criteria; ok to fail
22:46:06 <fantasai> ... but successful incubation isn't about multiple implementations, but interest from multiple implementations
22:46:14 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1 tantek
22:46:21 <bkardell_> q-
22:46:22 <tantek> q+ to respond to cwilso, should it be the entire "web community"? should W3C not pursue "niche" web standards? like is/was Social Web niche when we did it? Is ActivityPub still niche?
22:46:23 <cwilso> +1 that if you have two implementers in rough consensus, you're probably ready to move into REC track; but the question is if the community is only one implementer+others
22:46:32 <cwilso> ack next
22:46:44 <fantasai> dom: I like the idea of a process explainer for incubation, not just the technical piece but the standardization story
22:47:14 <fantasai> dom: wrt categorizations, some seem like no-brainer, e.g. 3 implementations and still incubation you're wrong
22:47:18 <fantasai> ... but there are grayer zones
22:47:27 <fantasai> ... different categories have different tradeoffs
22:47:45 <jyasskin> I'd say that the incubation has made a mistake rather than being "wrong". Nobody intends to stay in incubation with 3 shipping implementation; it just happens. :)
22:47:52 <fantasai> ... Tantek's point about implementation interest, sometimes interest is note expressed... some implementations don't want to express themselves
22:47:56 <cwilso> +1 (that's kind of what we do in https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/)
22:48:02 <bkardell_> q+
22:48:17 <cwilso> ack next
22:48:18 <fantasai> ... but the more  less-gray zones we can tap out, but leave only the hard cases for discussion, it will be easier to move forward on this topic
22:48:22 <bkardell_> q-
22:48:24 <tantek> q?
22:48:29 <fantasai> plh: To me, it's very important that we enable the Web to move forward
22:48:47 <fantasai> ... when it comes to incubation, I tell ppl, a good idea can come from a big company or a single individual I pass in the street
22:48:58 <fantasai> ... I don't trust companies, I trust people
22:49:08 <fantasai> ... it's important that we don't put too many hoops into allowing people to push their ideas forward
22:49:09 <dom> s/tap out/map out/
22:49:28 <fantasai> ... the JSON format, they didn't wait for standardization to be successful, that came much later after their success on the web
22:49:29 <bkardell_> some might argue html and http too :)
22:49:46 <fantasai> ... when an API has to be implemented in browsers, that requires a different bar than a data format to use on the Web
22:49:48 <jyasskin> +1
22:49:55 <fantasai> ... we can argue at length about success of TTML, for example
22:50:04 <fantasai> ... It's not implemented in Web browsers.
22:50:09 <fantasai> ... similar arguments about ActivityPub
22:50:18 <fantasai> ... They all have different notions of what success is.
22:50:30 <fantasai> ... We have to be very careful when we set bars, because one-size-fits-all won't help the Web move forward
22:50:31 <cwilso> ack next
22:50:32 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to respond to cwilso, should it be the entire "web community"? should W3C not pursue "niche" web standards? like is/was Social Web niche when we did it? Is
22:50:32 <Zakim> ... ActivityPub still niche?
22:50:45 <dom> [maybe incubated proposals should document their "incubation exit criteria"?]
22:50:51 <fantasai> tantek: Continuing the thread from plh, and cwilso's comment about getting the Web community behind something for it to move forward
22:51:01 <fantasai> ... should W3C encourage niche standards?
22:51:05 <fantasai> ... wide variety of opinions
22:51:17 <fantasai> ... "if not across Web, not in a browser or search engine, not belong at W3C"
22:51:28 <fantasai> ... or
22:51:28 <fantasai> ... "if it has anything to do with Web, then belongs at W3C"
22:51:45 <plh> q+
22:51:45 <fantasai> ... There have been arguments in both directions, and examples of too far in each direction
22:52:18 <fantasai> ... ActivityPub, Social Web WG was mostly Invited Experts, and a few company reps but not implementers
22:52:23 <fantasai> ... was that a niche standard?
22:52:34 <fantasai> ... if you look at implementations and number of users, can argue it's not niche anymore
22:52:40 <fantasai> ... and has major implementers now
22:53:05 <fantasai> ... if you bring to today, can look at BlueSky, developed by single organization and now has multiple implementations that are starting to interoperate
22:53:17 <fantasai> ... They don't seem interested in W3C standardization
22:53:33 <fantasai> ... Flip side we have SOLID
22:53:38 <cwilso> ack next
22:53:39 <fantasai> ... Which is good? How do we assess what Web community is interested in? I don't have answers.
22:54:04 <fantasai> plh: Wrt standardize niche or not, Automotive WG wasn't closed down because it was niche -- there are many automobiles around the world.
22:54:20 <fantasai> ... but closed because not ready to integrate with Web. Might re-open later, might take a few years.
22:54:31 <fantasai> ... When you talk about niche, could represent millions of people
22:54:41 <fantasai> ... We haven't tried to standardize MusicML because it's niche!
22:54:45 <cwilso> q?
22:54:52 <cwilso> zakim, close the queue
22:54:52 <Zakim> ok, cwilso, the speaker queue is closed
22:54:55 <fantasai> ... But music is important to many people
22:55:07 <fantasai> ... Web is so big, very easy to be a niche, unless you address millions of people
22:55:25 <fantasai> cwilso: Thanks for the conversation, good ideas like Process explainer
22:55:30 <tantek> what are our next steps cwilso?
22:55:36 <fantasai> ... encourage everyone to follow work in the Advisory Board
22:55:40 <tantek> for folks here and interested in advancing incubation
22:55:46 <fantasai> ... will continue to raise to the Membership
22:55:54 <csarven> I don't know.. working on web standards is kinda niche =)
22:55:57 <fantasai> ... guidance for doing incubations, right steps for moving into real charter
22:56:10 <fantasai> ... I don't know that we have enough of a handle on what goes into Process, guidance for Team
22:56:14 <tantek> csarven 😆 too true
22:56:19 <fantasai> ... I would encourage to file issues in AB-memberonly repo
22:56:32 <fantasai> cwilso: Thanks for showing up!
22:56:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/12-incubation-minutes.html fantasai
22:58:50 <tantek> s/TR and identify/TR and identify RECs to obsolete
22:59:32 <tantek> s/huge lag that/huge lag from
23:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/12-incubation-minutes.html tantek