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

Adding new specifications to charter #34

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 1, 2017
Merged

Conversation

igrigorik
Copy link
Member

As Discussed on WG call on 02/08/17, adding to charter:

  • Long Task API
  • Paint Timing
  • Element Timing API
  • Memory Pressure API
  • Server Timing API

Discussed on WG call on 02/08/17, adding to charter:
- Long Task API
- Paint Timing
- Element Timing API
- Memory Pressure API
- Server Timing API
@igrigorik
Copy link
Member Author

@yoavweiss
Copy link

LGTM! Regarding Server Timing, I'm hoping to start work on use-cases doc/explainer and spec soon

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

The "out of scope" section includes "methods to profile and instrument server side code". Is Server Timing part of that? If yes, then we need to update the out of scope section as well.

@yoavweiss
Copy link

The "out of scope" section includes "methods to profile and instrument server side code". Is Server Timing part of that? If yes, then we need to update the out of scope section as well.

I don't think Server Timing is at odds with that scope exclusion. At most, Server Timing gives means to report server side profiling results to the client.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

One more thing: the previous charter did contain Server Timing and had the same out of scope. If we concluded at the time that Server Timing isn't prohibited by the out of scope, then no further change is needed.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

@yoavweiss thanks. Then no change is needed.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

I had further discussions with legal folks on my side about whether my past assumptions on the need for a new charter when adding new deliverables. It appears that, as long as it's within the scope section of the charter, we don't need a new charter before proceeding and I was simply incorrect to assume otherwise. As long as everyone in the Working Group agree that it's in scope, we can proceed.

@igrigorik
Copy link
Member Author

@plehegar thanks, good to know. In which case, do we still want to update the charter and land these updates?

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

Nope, no need to update the charter. You can publish the drafts as soon as you have a group decision to do so. Apologizes for my past misguidance :(

@toddreifsteck
Copy link
Member

This LGTM. Merging.

@toddreifsteck toddreifsteck merged commit 3e4b712 into gh-pages Mar 1, 2017
@igrigorik igrigorik deleted the update-charter branch June 4, 2018 22:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants