Agenda for July 14 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting tomorrow:

• Interop 2023 RFC
  • First written similarly to Interop 2022, but @gsnedders proposed to make evergreen. How about:
    • Work done in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop (this repo renamed)
    • A charter.md which is created by the RFC process and can be amended by it
    • A folder or markdown file per year, backfilling with interop_2022.md
  • Making investigation efforts explicit proposals (not reflected in RFC)
  • Decision making of the team (definition of consensus)
• Test change review:
  • Request to drop color-contrast() tests #92
  • Upcoming: CSSWG resolved to clarify Flexbox Intrinsic Main Size algorithm  #94
• Investigation effort updates
  • Editing (@jgraham): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-editing
  • Pointer and Mouse Events (@flackr): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-pointer
  • Viewport (@bramus): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-viewport

Previous meeting: #90

[foolip]

While we don't review changes to the scores in the meeting, here's a screenshot of where we are right now:

Steady improvement, great to see!

[foolip]

Brief notes from the meeting.

Interop 2023 RFC

@foolip: Sam suggested making it more overgreen, does that make sense to others?

@jensimmons: That makes sense.

@jgraham: We might do both, keep the 2023 RFC and separately open and RFC for the charter. Lowers the risk.

@jensimmons: Would we still do an 2024 RFC?

@jgraham: No, the charter would spell that out.

@foolip: So I'll create a second RFC with the charter, probably pointing to a PR on this repo.

@foolip: What should we do with investigation efforts? Last year some proposals turned into investigation efforts. I didn't define it in the RFC. Should we make such proposals explicit?

@jgraham: They've been slow to get started this year, but I'd like to keep the possibility of investigation efforts.

@jensimmons: I think that would be an improvement. It would be good to further define what an investigation effort would be, or rather what it's not.

@foolip: What would the delineation be? The efforts we have in 2022 don't have razor sharp boundaries with standards groups.

@una: For the viewport investigation effort it's clear we're trying to solve problems that aren't yet defined by specs. How do we want to think of it in terms of the interop score?

@jgraham: For me the difference between investigation and normal standards work is investigation is about existing interop issues we don't know how to solve. "Develop this new feature" isn't an investigation effort, but the viewport investigation is. Typically we'd expect the outcome to be that we could propose it as a focus area for next year.

@chrishtr: Clearly our main goal is to achieve interop. Where there's a lack of interop, but specs or tests aren't good enough, that's a perfect fit. An additional area we should consider is gaps in things adjacent to what we do, related to clear developer pain points. I think that was the core of Domenic's proposal.

@jensimmons: It's clear this will need further discussion, as part of making a charter. If we have a clear definitions we can close issues that are out of scope. TBH I feel pretty strongly that identifying problems and defining solutions for them is part of the working groups. Improving mobile testing infra would have been great for this year. Manual testing would also be in scope for investigation, if we're very limited on automated testing.

@t: Want to emphasize (1) being deliberate about the scope of the group and investigation efforts. These discussions have been very useful, we're refining for 2023. (2) It's not our job to solve developer pain points, but that's a very useful lens to evaluate proposals. If there's something that requires something new in the platform, there's efforts like https://webwewant.fyi/.

@chrishtr: For features that aren't strictly speaking interop, it would be useful to get cross-vendor agreement that certain things are worth solving in the coming year.

@foolip Everyone please give feedback on decision making of the team, simple consensus or something involving implementer support/objections as well?