Agenda for Oct 20 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting today:

• Splitting proposals #191
  • Web Components #181 in particular
• MDN short surveys design #196 update and timeline
• Timeline for proposal selection process in November. Proposal:
  • Nov 10: tentative positions shared (optional, but would allow for back and forth)
  • Nov 17: final positions shared, consensus for each proposal determined
  • Nov 24: grouping/dropping proposals
  • Nov 30: communicate which proposals are accepted, ask for pull requests to document in repo
• How to share positions

Previous meeting: #209

Apologies for posting this agenda late!

[foolip]

Brief notes

Present: @nt1m @chrishtr @una @jensimmons @nairnandu @jgraham @zcorpan @bkardell @foolip

Splitting proposals

@foolip: do we need to split #143?
@jgraham: this one is a question of omitting some tests, not splitting, unless there are bits that people disagree about.
@jensimmons: given the number of proposals it'll be much easier if each proposal is either a simple support/neutral/oppose, and not a lot of detailed changes on each issue
@foolip: agree, that'll be helpful

@jgraham: In #143 (comment) it's the 2nd bullet point, where we think SVG and custom types is a different priority for us.
@chrishtr: So the concrete ask is to split out the things in the 2nd bullet point?
@jgraham: Yes, I think it's likely our position will be different.

Action item for @chrishtr to reach out to Ashley.

@foolip: To be clear, we're all OK with splitting proposals, even when that leads to new proposals?
@jgraham: Yes, that's the only way we can proceed.
@jensimmons: It's too bad the splitting didn't happen before the deadline, but let's treat the next deadline (Oct 30) as the deadline for that. Figure out how to do this better next year.

Action item for @chrishtr to work with @josepharhar to split WC.

Timeline for proposal selection

Nov 24 is Thanksgiving.

@gsnedders: Maybe we have to finish before then?
@jgraham: What happens if we push it into Dec?
@foolip: Concerned about letting the timeline slip.
@jensimmons: Oct 30 is the deadline for positions, so "final positions shared, consensus for each proposal determined" by then. Also we need a lot of time for resolution.
@una: Do we need more time than 30 minutes to do resolutions?
@jensimmons: Presumably we have a spreadsheet to share positions?

@bkardell: There are some we really want to see included and some we really don't, and then a lot of in-between. We know we're not going to 80 things, so if there are things we can exclude quickly, that helps.
@jgraham: In theory, once we have positions, the next step is mechanical. As long as the outcome of that forms a reasonable project. After that we might have more proposals than we want to have focus areas, so probably want to regroup or shuffle. So up Nov 17 seems fine, and then we have a longer meeting after Thanksgiving to discuss the fallout. That doesn't allow any back and forth though.
@jensimmons: Last year we had a bit of a debate about how to make decisions, and ended up doing each one individually, and just seeing what the result was. This year, with 80+ proposals, do we really want to have 50 things say? That waters down what interop can do, no longer the top things. Could we switch our process, maybe have everyone stack rank, aim for 15-20 items?
@jgraham: I don't expect anyone to agree to more work than they can actually do, so I kind of think that after the initial cut (Nov 17) that will already be a much smaller list. Maybe 20 or something. At that point regrouping is plausible.
@jensimmons: It might work out that way, but in public comms, if we reply that we objected to your proposal that's different than picking a top 20.
@jgraham: I'm extremely nervous about a new mechanism for accepting proposals at this point. I agree we need to communicate that it's about priorities. An objection doesn't mean it's not important or whatever, just that we can't commit to it being in a public metric.
@foolip: I think we'll need to do the proposals process up to Nov 17, but after that we could do ranking if everyone agrees to that.
@jensimmons: Agree with that, just saying we could additionally rank them.

@foolip: Is Nov 17 an OK date to share final positions?
@jgraham: Yeah, and the Nov 10 date only means we can share early.
@jensimmons: That works for us too.
@foolip: I'll send a prototype spreadsheet tomorrow.
@jensimmons: One spreadsheet with one column for each org would work.
@jgraham: Or a front page with just positions and an extra with any extra information..