Agenda for Aug 4 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting tomorrow:

• Interop 2023 RFC ready to approve?
• Interop Team Charter RFC created
  • Actual charter is in Create the Interop Team Charter #102, draft with TODOs:
  • Scope: Do we define what "the web platform" is, or rely on consensus to find the line? Relevant to browser/OS UI and Process for considering issues related to Web Apps in Interop 2023 #91
  • Scope: We don't produce specs, but investigation efforts can involve spec work. Fine?
  • Governance: Individual participation and objections.
• Test change review:
  • Remove html/semantics/forms/the-input-element/range-restore-oninput-onchange-event.html #99
  • Remove transform tests failing across 3 engines? #100
  • Remove/Change containment tests testing support for display: ruby-text #101
  • Remove inert-svg-hittest.html from Interop 2022 wpt-metadata#2925 (no issue?)
  • Remove relative color syntax from Interop 2022 #104
• Investigation effort updates
  • Editing (@jgraham): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-editing
  • Pointer and Mouse Events (@flackr): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-pointer
  • Viewport (@bramus): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-viewport

Previous meeting: #98

[nt1m]

Can we have this issue as a last minute addition: #104 ?

[foolip]

@nt1m I'll add it in!

[gsnedders]

Scope: We don't produce specs, but investigation efforts can involve spec work. Fine?

I think your todo in the actual draft is better than this (i.e., "Not writing specs as part of this team, but can work within regular working groups to get stuff done as necessary."); like, I think the important bit here is being explicit that investigate efforts can depend on spec work, but they must happen within a group chartered to work on it with an acceptable IP policy.

[jgraham]

Minutes

Interop 2023 RFC

Philip: What's blocking this? Are others intending to review? Some comment threads aren't clear if they need a change. Probably aren't any issues that we need to discuss in the meeting.
jgraham: I don't think there's a lot of things in there that are controversial, but you should probably read it.
Jen: We aren't very happy with the progress of the investigate efforts. We don't have a definite position, but we might object to investigate efforts contributing to score.
Philip: This proposal has some changes to the way that works. Last time we turned existing proposals into investigate areas. This time investigations would have to be defined that way from that start.
Jen: Part of what's happned this year is just the process overhead for investigate efforts. Scope of work being defined before it's approved could help. I don't think we have a problem with investigate being considered as part of RFC, but we definitely don't want to state that the investigate efforts will defnitely happen. We don't want them to all score 0.
Sam: In a real sense the relevant part of the RFC is the scoring part.
Philip: That says we decide the scoring later on. RFC allows for zero proposals and leaves scoring for later. We could define that now. But that seems difficult without more detail.
James: We think this is important and would want it to be included at this stage. I think there are signs of progress on this year's areas, and we think there are parts of interop we can't address with just tests.
Jen: Agreed, but we think that making it part of the score is causing confusion, and maybe isn't enough to drive those efforts. Main request is that the RFC allows us to figure out the scoring later.
Sam: Even as not part of the score they could appear on the dashboard in some way.
Philip: There are options there.

Team Charter

Philip: Does this look like what people were expecting? [no objections]. Want some kind of scope. There are two options. Very vauge, just rely on consensus to define the boundaries. Or do more work to define upfront what's allowed to avoid discussions later.
Jen: Might be a good idea to try to write down what we've already agreed to this point. We've seen proposals that have come in from outside the group, and having a clear public facing definition of what this is would be helpful for those.
Philip: Two aspects are important to write it down. One is that we don't do spec work. The other is "what's the platform?" Browser UI obviously isn't it, but do we try to write down what it is?
Jen: Agreed. We're under wpt, so this project is about using wpt. That already narrows down the scope a lot. What's web tech vs what's browser chrome? We can use a definition based on being part of a standard. Random documents outside standards groups aren't in scope, neither are things that are browser code.
Philip: Sounds like we want something about scope more than emergent consensus. But we aren't likely to get all the boundaries written down cleanly.
Philip: Governance. We have org affiliations, but not everyone does. How do individuals work with objections process? This isn't a problem we have right now.
Sam: This is also in contrast to wpt core team which in principle is individuals. But not proposing an opinion.
Philip: Could just talk about organisations and go on our way. Should individuals be able to participate as part of the decision making?
Tantek: Could provide pathways for individuals e.g. steering toward exisitng partipation onramps in wpt / WGs. People might not be aware of the scope, those alternatives might be more helpful for them.
James: Good for individuals to be able to participate, but browser engines are the ones being scored, and that puts requirements on how we make decisions.
Jen: People with a track record of contributions are the relevenat constituency for this group.

Test change review

Philip: Need to ping people at Google/Mozilla to see if they agree with the change.

Investigation updates

Editing

James: Got goals, and rough structure for scoring. Starting to make some progress on areas.
Philip: Most scoring is up to the judgement of the teams

Coda

Philip: Meeting is now weekly and will remain that way until Interop 2023 is defined.