[wg/gpu] GPU for the Web WG recharter

[tidoust]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff from charter template

If applicable:

diff from previous charter

chair dashboard

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New

• New WG
• New IG
• If this is a new WG or IG charter request, link to Advance Notice, and any issue discussion:

• Existing

• Existing WG recharter
• Existing IG recharter
• If this is a charter extension or revision, any issue discussion:

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach

Groups identified in the Coordination section.

Known or potential areas of concern

None. Proposed scope and deliverables are the same. Main proposed change is the switch to perpetual CR mode. That said, note that the GPU for the Web WG is still reviewing the draft and may adjust it. Internal review in the group should conclude at the upcoming group's F2F end of October.

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? In the gpuweb/admin repository (or this strategy funnel issue)

Anything else we should think about as we review?

The group should soon request transition of the WebGPU and WGSL specifications to Candidate Recommendation.

Cc: @Kangz @kdashg

[simoneonofri]

From a Security point of view, the considerations on WebGPU seem to me to be well written.

I was pondering, reading this paper and also considering the structure of browser processes, whether we can add some mitigation in this regard.

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[ruoxiran]

no comment or request from APA.

[plehegar]

Privacy is wondering about the status of gpuweb/gpuweb#3101

[tidoust]

I was pondering, reading this paper and also considering the structure of browser processes, whether we can add some mitigation in this regard.

@simoneonofri Does that warrant charter updates though? The charter already states in its Scope section that the group "will investigate and document threat mitigation strategies for the API, notably to address fingerprinting issues and to prevent unauthorized use of computational resources". If additional mitigations are warranted, the group would be happy to consider them. Linking to the document you point out from the charter seems overly specific.

[tidoust]

Privacy is wondering about the status of gpuweb/gpuweb#3101

That's one of the few remaining open issues that the group is aware of and will provide an answer for before requesting transition to CR. The group does not anticipate going beyond what was already put in place in response to the issue (restriction to 5 bits revealed, correlated with information that can be obtained through other means).

[simoneonofri]

If additional mitigations are warranted, the group would be happy to consider them.

thanks @tidoust, yes we can talk about it separately.

[plehegar]

PING is fine moving forward with the charter.