Agenda for Nov 10 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting on Thursday, Nov 10:

• Survey results:
  • Results of MDN CSS & HTML survey #245
  • Results of MDN APIs & JavaScript survey #246
  • Results of State of CSS 2022 Browser Incompatibilities #248
  • Commenting on proposals
• Logistics of proposal selection #243
  • How to provide actionable feedback on proposals by end of Nov at the latest
• Expanding 2021 and 2022 focus areas for 2023 #119
  • Sam's summary from last week:
    • Should we carry over focus areas from last year? – yes
    • Should we carry over tests in those focus areas that pass everywhere? – yes?
    • Should we increase the scope of those focus areas? – no
    • Should we increase the test coverage of those focus areas? – yes?
    • Should that increased test coverage for those focus areas also affect Interop 2021/22 scoring? – no
    • How should we weigh carried over focus areas? – ?
  • More discussion needed on the question marks, some on the issue since last week already.

Previous meeting: #244

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @chrishtr, @dlibby-, @foolip, @gsnedders, @jensimmons, @jgraham, @nairnandu, @nt1m, @unakravets, @zcorpan

Notes:

• Survey results:

  • [foolip@] State of CSS results summarized here

• Proposal selection logistics:

  • [foolip@] Draft proposal for how we respond to proposal authors is here
  • [jgraham@] Can we write specific responses to each proposal that we oppose?
  • [foolip@] There is more work involved with that mode. Can we divide up the work by having 1 representative per organization to draft and review the responses?
  • [jgraham@] Happy to participate in that effort
  • [foolip@] So far, we just have two volunteers. Lets find out how much work is involved and ask for more volunteers, if needed.
  • [jensimmons@] As long as we can provide the context to the author.
  • [jgraham@] +1 to adding more context
  • [jgraham@] What is the timeline for this?
  • [jensimmons@] We have until Jan, which is when we announce
  • [nt1m@] Jan 2023 makes sense so that we have time for weighting or grouping if need be
  • [foolip@] Lets review the proposal next week and debate any areas where there is no consensus

• Expanding 2021 and 2022 focus areas for 2023 #119

  • [nt1m@] Before having the focus areas for 2023, it feels like we are bikeshedding on weighting and scoring
  • [jensimmons@] Assumption is that If something is included, it is shown on the dashboard and used for weighting. We could potentially list things from the past (2021-22), but not count against the score (2023)
  • [chrishtr@] +1 to considering two scores, one for 2023 and one for prior years
  • [jgraham@] +1. Focus-area is a focus over a time period. There could be a lot of potential reasons for something not getting done. Like the idea of having separation of current and past focus areas.
  • [nt1m@] Carry over of tests - Depending on the focus area, there could be different approaches.
  • [zcorpan@] Every year we introduce a set of focus areas. Can we continue to track previous years’ scores?
  • [unakravets@] We still care about the work to reach the 2022 goals as an example. Like the approach of having the previous focus areas be a part of the current score.
  • [zcorpan@] If flexbox was a 2021 focus area, it continues to be a 2021 focus area. We can continue to work on it in 2023, but does not impact 2023 scores
  • [jensimmons@] We list all 2022 focus areas - we have 3 browser engines - create a col for collective tests that pass. Do the same for 2021. Let's review that against 2023 focus areas. This helps to show progress over time across all browsers
  • [zcorpan@] … and how did the score change over time (line graph with a line for each year or each focus area)
  • [jgraham@] +1 We should try to see what that looks like. On continuing to track older scores separately - If the effort is only showing up on an older (2021/22) score, it's unclear what the incentive would be.
  • [zcorpan@] +1
  • [jensimmons@] What’s the concern with changing what’s in interop (adding new tests)?
  • [jgraham@] If the spec changes (rare case) causes changes in tests, we would have to get consensus to add those tests in interop.
  • [jensimmons@] If it’s scope creep, we can reject/exclude those tests
  • [nt1m@] We should not increase the scope of focus areas, but adding tests should be plausible if there is a bug/issue
  • [jgraham@] It’s difficult to come up with a crisp measure of how interoperable a feature is
  • [foolip@] We are talking about flex and grid - if we have a non trivial # of tests we need to focus on, there are a few ways of doing it:
    • 1. combine them (into the older focus area) or
    • 2. split them into two (a 2023 focus area) - not preferred or
    • 3. we untangle the year from the focus area
  • [jensimmons@] It's much more complex with some other feature areas (forms as an example). Option 2 might be confusing for developers. Option 3 makes sense.
  • [foolip@] lets review this topic more in detail next week