Agenda for Feb 8, 2024

[nairnandu]

Here is the proposed agenda for the meeting on Feb 8th, 2024

• Publish the ordered list of proposals #632
• Test change proposals
• Update to the meeting cadence

[nairnandu]

proposed addition to the agenda

• The Webassembly investigation area does not have a working link in the dashboard #630

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @chrishtr, @nairnandu, @bkardell, @meyerweb, @jensimmons, @jgraham, @gsnedders, @dandclark, @tantek

Notes:

• Publish the ordered list of proposals #632
  • nairnandu: when we reviewed the process for Interop 2024, we had given ourselves the provision to publish the joint rankings of proposals. Issue 632 is aimed at doing just that. Do believe that there is an opportunity to publish the joint prioritization and resulting rankings without attribution.
  • bkardell: there will still be a lot of speculation on the vetoes
  • jensimmons: the spirit of the language, in the process doc, was not to publish rankings after 2024 was announced. I think the idea was to figure out areas where we can be more open. I was very surprised that it is being brought up now. I think this would have been a very different conversation in Nov. Looking at the reactions to a specific proposal, the frustration is more on the result and not on the visibility of the process. I dont see anything that the Interop team can do that mitigates the frustration.
  • meyerweb: if we release the rankings, there might be more frustration on the specifics. Hard to see any other outcome.
  • jgraham: agree with others. Interop is not an avenue to force a decision on things where browser vendors have previously presented objections. In retrospect, we could have been more clear on that. Don’t think we should be releasing this list.
  • chrishtr: do we think this is causing harm to the Interop program?
  • bkardell: I think we should post about the signals we looked at to arrive at the rankings. It is not very intuitive for someone who is not part of the process. I do think there is harm to the program if we don't do that.
  • chrishtr: if we add clarity on the process leading up to specific rankings, I think it would be talking to the community under the belief that greater transparency builds trust. This is how W3C operates.
  • jensimmons: it's important to remember that the audience is very diverse. Any communication should address the audience and where they are at. Most people would not care as much about the details or process, just the outcomes. I don’t believe we are going to get to a consensus on a blog post. I don't think it is hurting the trust in the Interop program.
  • gsnedders: if we say specific rankings, there would be questions on why and who (the details). Retrospectively, there were certain things we could have messaged differently. If people have concerns about the content/responses on specific issues, there is a code of conduct that should be followed.
  • jgraham: not sure what the impact is to the Interop brand. We likely won't know till next year.
  • chrishtr: do think that responding to the anger would be helpful. Agree with what Sam said, with respect to the accurate response for specific proposals. I think we can find ways to say why something was ranked lower and that we are doing the best we can with the data we have.
  • dandclark: +1, I think an empathetic response here is better than stonewalling.
  • jensimmons: if we were to try and say something like that for specific issues, it will make matters worse. I think we should set aside the toxicity that’s coming at us and look at this objectively. I think we could focus more on the more valuable things we could be doing for developers.
  • tantek: +1, very unlikely to have any positive outcome from engaging with an angry mob
  • Outcome: No consensus to publish the rankings and no consensus to respond to specific issues
• Test change proposals
  • Pointer events - Test change proposal for pointer events #628
    • nairnandu: we missed the opportunity to bring this up during the carryover evaluation
    • jensimmons: On the process side, I think we did formally miss the opportunity to include these changes. Need more time to review and discuss internally as its a big change.
    • jgraham: Agree on the process. However, on the whole it's a good idea to do it. Broadly supportive. Needs more discussion.
• The Webassembly investigation area does not have a working link in the dashboard #630
  • nairnandu: can we create a repo and point the Investigation area link to that?
  • jgraham: would be good if the person leading the investigation can create the repo
  • dandclark: we would like to be involved in this investigation
  • chrishtr: adamk is the DRI for this investigation
• Update to the meeting cadence
  • nairnandu: shifting the meeting back to bi-weekly cadence. Next meeting is on the 22nd - where we will do the retrospective.
  • gsnedders: Dealing with browser specific failures - should be on the agenda and there are other things on the backlog that could use a weekly cadence.
  • jgraham: along with the retrospective, it would be good to discuss the backlog of work
  • jensimmons: we should also discuss the 2025 process in March/April. Based on the backlog of work, we can choose to have smaller group discussions. This should include the wpt.fyi homepage.
  • Next meetings:
    • No meeting on Feb 15th
    • Feb 22nd - retrospective
    • Feb 29th - review and discuss the backlog of work for 2024
  • AI for nairnadu to create an issue to collect feedback for the retrospective and to share a doc (within the Interop team) to collate all the backlog requests for 2024