Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Horizontal reviews #5

Open
tobie opened this Issue Jan 19, 2019 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@tobie
Copy link
Contributor

tobie commented Jan 19, 2019

The TSC is currently organizing how to do horizontal reviews for security, privacy, and accessibility.

This is something where the input of the AC is really important.

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 19, 2019

Should we split that up in three separate issues? LMK.

@LJWatson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

LJWatson commented Jan 19, 2019

Suggest we keep them together for the moment. Once we have a basic process, it might be worth splitting them out to focus on the differences, but for now we should get the basics in place.

I've had to request access to the thing about horizontal review you linked to BTW.

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 19, 2019

I've had to request access to the thing about horizontal review you linked to BTW.

Tracking here: #9

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 22, 2019

I've had to request access to the thing about horizontal review you linked to BTW.

Tracking here: #9

OK, so that's been solved for the minutes of every meeting but this one.

@cramforce

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramforce commented Jan 29, 2019

Meeting notes are published here https://github.com/ampproject/meta-tsc/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22TSC+Meeting%22+ (for now not including the first meeting, because there we hadn't decided to publish them yet)

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 30, 2019

I'm folding issue #8 into this one, as we've agreed during our 2019-01-29 call that both had similar enough process requirements to do so.

#8 is a request coming from the TSC to:

Make recommendation how to represent vertical concerns (publishing, e-commerce) in working groups.

There's two parts to this:

  1. input for the roadmap, and
  2. review of what's coming out of development (e.g. making sure that concerns of the different verticals are met or know to be out of scope when new features ship).
@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 30, 2019

A good first step here would be to figure out what is already being done in terms of horizontal reviews.

What process have been set up, if any?

What WG are in charge of them?

Are there specific labels applied to those issues? Pull request / issue templates? Etc.

@sumodas, @levidurfee can you split-up the work between you and report here?

@tobie tobie referenced this issue Jan 30, 2019

Closed

Follow-up actions to 2019-01-20 meeting #12

5 of 5 tasks complete

@tobie tobie assigned tobie and levidurfee and unassigned tobie and levidurfee Jan 30, 2019

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Jan 30, 2019

@sumodas: would love to assign you too 😈, but I can't until you accept to join the ampproject organization.

@tobie tobie assigned levidurfee and unassigned levidurfee Feb 1, 2019

@levidurfee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

levidurfee commented Feb 1, 2019

Thanks, @tobie ! I'll spend some time on this issue over the weekend :)

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Feb 1, 2019

(Sorry for re-assigning you, @levidurfee. I wanted to add @sumodas, but he's not a member of the org yet. So there must be some weird UI-issue where that reset the assignees altogether.)

@levidurfee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

levidurfee commented Feb 2, 2019

Security

It looks like LGTM is used to for security analysis. I didn't see any labels for security.

Privacy

I couldn't find anything in regards to how privacy is handled. I didn't see any labels for privacy.

Accessibility

There is a label for accessibility. Requiring all amp-modules be tested by lighthouse is brought up in issue #19281.

@tobie tobie referenced this issue Mar 4, 2019

Closed

AC Meeting #2 2019-03-05 #20

2 of 2 tasks complete
@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

tobie commented Mar 18, 2019

We discussed this issue on our last call, but don't have a lot of notes for it.

I think what we'd want to end-up with here, is state-of-the-art solution for making sure that these various horizontal and vertical concerns are formally brought up and addressed when new features are suggested (or important changes are made to existing ones).

This probably involves:

  • some process changes,
  • some related changes e.g. to pull request templates,
  • additions to the responsibilities of certain WG,
  • the creation of dedicated working groups for verticals (similar to W3C interest groups),
  • etc.

Good examples that come to mind of horizontal reviews occur in Chromium during Intent to Implement and Intent to Ship phases (see for example the bug template which includes a list of horizontal teams that need to approve it).

W3C also has similar solutions with:

  • TAG reviews,
  • reviews by interest groups (which tend to represent industries, e.g.: automotive, mobile, TV, etc.),
  • Accessibility reviews,
  • etc.

I believe our deliverable should be an "opinion" for the TSC in the form of a problem statement (ideal, reality, consequence, proposal).

We should set some time on the agenda in London to move forward with this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.