Agenda for Jun 15, 2023

[nairnandu]

Proposed agenda for Jun 15, 2023

• Finish the Interop Team Charter #275
• Recurring agenda: Interop 2024 process
  • Interop 2024 brainstorming #331
• Test change proposals
  • Make color-mix() and RCS using rgb, hsl and hwb return round-trippable, unbounded results in color(srgb ...) #333
  • [motion-1] Add coord-box motion path tests #334
  • [math functions] remove incorrect tests #337

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @boazsender, @gsnedders, @meyerweb, @dandclark, @jgraham, @nairnandu, @jensimmons, @robnyman, @nt1m, @zcorpan

Finish the Interop Team Charter #275

• gsnedders: latest comment is here - Proposed charter amendments #342
• jgraham: agree with that. Do the work in WPT group to define what kind of sub-group process exists.
• gsnedders: do we need to put anything in the Interop charter? Default to not putting anything in, if there are no strong opinions
• gsnedders: does it make sense to merge the current proposed changes to the main charter and continue the discussion there
• Consensus to say nothing and merge the change
• Jgraham: foolip had created a backlog of pending items here - Create the Interop Team Charter #102 (comment)
• dandclark: applying to join the group. Would the voting for it be member confidential?
• jgraham: for joining the group specifically, don’t think we need to call out whether or not we publish. Added a note for replacing the email address with contacting the chair.
• gsnedders: we should treat this as a special case different from the thread above on generally sharing votes publicly.

Interop 2024 brainstorming #331

• nairnandu: In the last meeting, we briefly discussed reviewing the criteria for filtering
• gsnedders: Dont think we had consensus on that approach
• boazsender: would be useful to discuss the criteria for filtering
• jensimmons: are we talking about a high-level filtering of proposals or are we talking internal rubrics
• jgraham: my comment was that we collect a set of data for each proposal which can be used to assess as the intake process ramps up
• boazsender: my proposal is that we talk about criteria that might have some overlap and we are comfortable sharing
• jensimmons: the fundamental criteria for the most part, have been specified in the proposal process. This year, we should potentially switch to a top 5-10 proposals so that we don’t have to spend a lot of cycles. Lot of things go into prioritization (what web devs are talking about, internal roadmaps etc.). Internal conversations about engineering priorities might not be relevant to share broadly.
• jgraham: low bar for proposals is already specified in the proposal template. The proposal is pretty aligned to being able to consider the open slots and pick the highest value proposals
• boazsender: could we write some of this down?
• jensimmons: We should try and make the process light-weight this time. A min. criteria should be established to weed out the obvious ones. If each org could come back with the top # slots we could then review as a team. If we feel that we should write down the fundamental values for this project, then we should do that.
• jgraham: We could collect the data for each proposal in a shared location. The actual size of 2024 should be discussed
• jensimmons: it would be helpful to have proposal that is a form where we can have mandated fields
• jgraham: for some data (standards, implementation data, link to MDN etc.) should be reasonable for proposal authors to submit. Propose to have the Interop team be responsible for collecting data that cannot be provided by a proposal author
• jensimmons: last year it was requested in a narrative form - maybe it’s better to separate that out
• boazsender: totally agree. Could we use the next meeting to align on the higher level attributes and that could lead us to fields/questions
• jensimmons: could someone list down the implicit values that this team has agreed upon?
• boazsender: could take a look at any existing content we have and come up with that list for next meeting