Permalink
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
180 lines (127 sloc) 7.01 KB

WebAssembly logo

Agenda for the September 25th video call of WebAssembly's Working Group

  • Host: Google Hangouts
  • Dates: Monday September 25th, 2017
  • Times: 9:00-10:00am Pacific Time
  • Location: Brad will email Google Hangouts link to WG members + registered CG guests prior to the meeting
  • Contact:

Registration

If you are a Working Group member no registration is required.

If you are a Community Group member who would like to observe, please register here: https://goo.gl/forms/HD2kLCM0iSKk7AVl1

Logistics

The meeting will be a Google Hangouts call.

Agenda items

  1. Opening, welcome and roll call
    1. Opening of the meeting
    2. Introduction of attendees
  2. Find volunteers for note taking (chair to volunteer).
  3. Adoption of the agenda
  4. Proposals and discussions
    1. Discussion of coordination with the Community Group.
      1. Discussion of phases proposal.
      2. POLL: We should adopt the phases proposal in coordination with the Community Group.
    2. Decomposition of specification
      1. Discussion how these parts of the spec should be published:
        1. WebAssembly core spec
        2. JavaScript embedding
        3. Web embedding
      2. POLL: We should publish the core spec, JS embedding, and Web embedding a separate documents, with appropriate cross references to each other.
    3. Spec repo logistics
      1. Should we branch or fork the repo to capture Working Group state?
    4. Adoption of CG specification
      1. Discussion of state of the core specification.
      2. POLL: We should officially tag and adopt a revision of the spec as the WG input.
      3. POLL: We should adopt the current WebAssembly core spec as a "First Public Working Draft" for WebAssembly Core Specification v.1.
    5. Future meetings
      1. Confirm next meeting date + time.
      2. Discuss meeting time + day at TPAC.
  5. Closure

Agenda items for future meetings

None.

Schedule constraints

None.

Dates and locations of future meetings

Dates Location Host
2017-11-01 to 2017-11-02 Santa Clara, CA Intel
2017-11-06 to 2017-11-07 Burlingame, CA TPAC

Meeting notes

Roll call

  • Bastien, JF
  • Christiansen, Kenneth
  • Ehrenberg, Daniel
  • Ferris, Michael
  • Gravelle, Jacob
  • Holk, Eric
  • Holman, Michael
  • Jensen, Peter
  • Miller, Mark
  • Nelson, Bradley
  • Purushan, Arun
  • Rossberg, Andreas
  • Schuff, Derek
  • Titzer, Ben
  • Wagner, Luke
  • Zhu, Limin

Find volunteers for note taking (chair to volunteer).

JF volunteers

Adoption of the agenda

Dan seconds

Proposals and discussions

Discussion of coordination with the Community Group.

Discussion of phases proposal.

  • Rossberg: Do we know how many people in WG aren’t in CG?
  • Nelson: No. Anyone on the call?

POLL: We should adopt the phases proposal in coordination with the Community Group.

No objections to unanimous consent

Decomposition of specification

Discussion how these parts of the spec should be published:

      1. [WebAssembly core spec](https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec)
      1. [JavaScript embedding](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/JS.md)
         * [Draft spec](https://littledan.github.io/spec/document/JS.html)
      1. [Web embedding](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/Web.md)
  • Nelson: Concern in last discussion was that web / JS would highlight things that are missing from core spec, resetting the standardization clock.
  • Rossberg: Last week I added wording about embedder interface.
  • Ehrenberg: The embedder interface looks great. I am not positive it will address all JS and Web embedding spec needs, but at least the vast majority.
  • Rossberg: There may be some trivial data structure manipulations, but this covers all the major points.
  • Bastien: What timing would we aim for?
  • Rossberg: I think we should coordinate the two. I’d be fine waiting for the JS spec. If there’s strong feeling that we should push for the core spec now I’m OK too.
  • Nelson: I agree going forward we’ll want to coordinate. Only thing nudging us forward is IP clock. Other thing is we have interop, we have browsers shipping this.
  • Ehrenberg: I’m not sure what W3C has to do with interop. We haven’t seen browsers waiting.
  • Nelson: In light of that I think it’s fine to delay. Dan do you have timeframe?
  • Ehrenberg: Within a month.
  • Nelson: Should we just decompose?
  • Ehrenberg: I expressed concerns about synchronization, maintaining different versions. Decomposing sounds good to me.
  • Nelson: Are you doing web and JS embedding as separate docs?
  • Ehrenberg: I can do separate if that what you’d want. I think web embedding has parts that can be used by non-web things. If it’s easier way to understand then let’s do that.

POLL: We should publish the core spec, JS embedding, and Web embedding as separate documents, with appropriate cross references to each other, coordinating on release schedule.

No objections to unanimous consent

Spec repo logistics

Should we branch or fork the repo to capture Working Group state?

  • Nelson: W3C folks had suggested we fork the spec repo to make explicit what was blessed by CG.
  • Rossberg: Why fork instead of branch?
  • Nelson: Not sure. Maybe they’re used to more process? WG needs to do more work on paper trail.
  • Bastien: Seems simpler to branch. It’s easier to understand and track.

Adoption of CG specification. Discussion of state of the core specification.

POLL: We should officially tag and adopt a revision of the spec as the WG input.

Tabled for now, wait for Dan’s work

POLL: We should adopt the current WebAssembly core spec as a "First Public Working Draft" for WebAssembly Core Specification v.1.

Tabled for now, wait for Dan’s work

Future meetings

Confirm next meeting date + time.

TPAC is in November. Ehrenberg can only attend remotely.

  • Nelson: No reason to meet in-between? Is it useful to meet in two weeks given that Dan won’t be ready at that point?

Crickets

  • Nelson: Goal of TPAC is outreach. We likely won't have substantive items on agenda. Any particular thing we should talk about at TPAC?
  • Bastien: Should do a joint session with WebGPU.
  • Nelson: Do we want to schedule a meeting for ~1 month from now, separate form TPAC? We could do October 23rd, same time 9AM Pacific time.

Action item: Brad to create meeting page.

Discuss meeting time + day at TPAC.

Closure

Adjourned