14:56:16 RRSAgent has joined #future-tag 14:56:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-future-tag-irc 14:56:20 RRSAgent, do not leave 14:56:21 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:56:22 Meeting: The Future of TAG Reviews & Other Output 14:56:22 Chair: Daniel Appelquist, Lea Verou 14:56:22 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/59 14:56:22 Zakim has joined #future-tag 14:56:23 Zakim, clear agenda 14:56:23 agenda cleared 14:56:23 Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe 14:56:24 agendum 1 added 14:56:24 Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy 14:56:24 agendum 2 added 14:56:24 Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session 14:56:26 agendum 3 added 14:56:26 Zakim, agenda+ Discussion 14:56:26 agendum 4 added 14:56:26 Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues 14:56:28 agendum 5 added 14:56:28 tpac-breakout-bot has left #future-tag 16:49:12 csarven has joined #future-tag 16:57:52 jyasskin has joined #future-tag 16:59:35 present+ 17:01:38 noamr has joined #future-tag 17:02:53 lea has joined #future-tag 17:03:00 vmpstr has joined #future-tag 17:03:05 hadleybeeman has joined #future-tag 17:03:16 Jem has joined #future-tag 17:03:24 xiaocheng has joined #future-tag 17:03:28 dandclark has joined #future-tag 17:03:35 mnot has joined #future-tag 17:03:38 mt has joined #future-tag 17:04:05 eemeli has joined #future-tag 17:04:08 tantek has joined #future-tag 17:04:14 present+ 17:04:17 present+ 17:04:20 dmurph has joined #future-tag 17:04:24 Yves has joined #future-tag 17:04:26 present+ 17:04:32 DKA has joined #future-tag 17:04:35 present+ 17:04:38 present+ 17:04:40 present+ Dan Murphy 17:04:41 present+ Dan_Appelquist 17:04:44 plinss has joined #future-tag 17:04:57 Present+ 17:04:58 scheib has joined #future-tag 17:05:05 present+ 17:05:06 present+ 17:05:07 scribe dmurph 17:05:09 q? 17:05:11 scribe+ dmurph 17:05:11 present+ 17:05:12 present+ 17:05:13 kizu0 has joined #future-tag 17:05:24 dschinazi has joined #future-tag 17:05:32 Jeffrey: This is how the TAg participates in the community 17:05:37 nigel has joined #future-tag 17:05:45 ...: We have ideas & listen to everyone's thoughts 17:05:52 present+ Nigel_Megitt 17:06:10 ChrisL has joined #future-tag 17:06:23 cbiesinger has joined #future-tag 17:06:30 present+ JaeunJemmaKu 17:06:35 plh has joined #future-tag 17:06:42 rrsagent, make logs public 17:06:43 rrsagent, make minutes 17:06:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-future-tag-minutes.html nigel 17:06:51 Dan: About 10 years ago, we rebooted the tag 17:06:56 rrsagent, here 17:06:56 See https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-future-tag-irc#T17-06-56 17:07:14 present+ 17:07:14 ...: It helps to set the scene about where we are. A lot of people wanted the tag to be more impactful & response to the commity 17:07:44 ...: We wanted to have more people to act as a design authority in the W3C, not just answering big hairy questions about future of web arch, but also help people do the work they are doing to design new APIs 17:07:48 s/commity/community/ 17:08:20 ...: We had a reputation of coming around and helping people design & issues. But unfortunately it was mostly negative - people felt like you don't really want to ask the tag for help, as that will definitely prolong the work. Raise issues. 17:08:29 ...: I was part of that TAG for one term. 17:08:46 matatk has joined #future-tag 17:08:50 present+ 17:09:02 ...: In 2013, we put in place a more systemized approach on GitHub. Right now - we have an iteration of what we put in place in 2013. It's much more poll-based. We encourage people to request reviews at different stages. There's a template, it has gotten bigger and bigger. 17:09:08 noamr1 has joined #future-tag 17:09:44 ...: Key element: Explainer. Alex Russell promoted that idea, that we should start that explainer. In early days of reboot. We made it clear what that should be, document which slots along side of your spec, and can explain spec to anybody who is not the same mindset as you. 17:10:09 ...: There are other things we started to work on such as design principles, security, privacy, ... a lot of that stuff iterated out of the design review process. 17:10:22 ...: Then we would take common things that happened, and write a design principle out of that. 17:10:36 ...: The current way it works, and we think it provides value, is by that approach. 17:10:45 s/poll-based/pull-based/ 17:11:03 ...: One of the questions I'm interested in - hearing from people - we have some ideas, some feedback is that reviews take a long time... 17:11:08 q+ to ask the level and granularity of TAG's design system guidance 17:11:27 ...: I also want to hear from people that have been interacting with the design group process to interate and make it more useful for people 17:11:34 Martin: This is not just about getting design reviews faster, also about improving the TAG 17:12:06 Dan: I'm only talking abouat the design review thing - we have other options as well. Part of the feedback is that - what is the correct settings on the 'mixer' on the level of power in design reviews vs other things we could do / or are doing. 17:12:06 q+ mnot 17:12:28 Dan: I am not asking "what is the role of the TAG" - I don't think it's useful 17:12:39 ack Jem 17:12:39 Jem, you wanted to ask the level and granularity of TAG's design system guidance 17:13:12 Jem: I came to TAG because I saw features on the website, and I want to learn more. Dan answered one of my questions. I'm working for Aria group & accessibility & rich internet application group 17:13:28 ...: I'm sharing... I heard that TAG is trying to help & guide direction of ARIA w.r.t. HTML 17:13:55 khush has joined #future-tag 17:14:03 ...: Dan said TAG is trying to help people guide systems, and that's great. We have a rough idea of how ARIA and HTML should go together. What is the granularity of TAG reviews for something like this? 17:14:06 q+ to ask about the approach to "triage" and how quickly "we're not interested, go ahead" responses can be generated 17:14:22 Dan: You mentioned that Lia was going to intro the other design of things.... (to jeff) ... That will be useful to do. 17:14:50 Jeff: I heard a disagreement between Dan & Mark - we should explain the disagreement, and then .... Lea & Mark, and then we should listen to people who haven't been involved in tha argument 17:14:52 s/Aria group & accessibility & rich internet application group/ARIA, APA, and AG groups/ 17:15:11 s/features/pictures/ 17:15:13 Lia: I've been in the TAG for 4 years, I do see a lot of room for improvement in process. 17:15:19 s/Lia/Lea 17:15:32 ...: The design reviews we are currently doing are useful. The question is not whether they are useful, question is how we can optimize time so we can add the most value. 17:16:04 ...: The design reviews we are getting, we struggle prioritizing (ad-hoc). We spend time reviewing very low level features (one value, one css property) that are probably more suitable to be reviewed by the WG that is shipping impl 17:16:17 ...: Or we find inconsistencies between browsers, and when point out,-- sorry too late 17:16:38 ...: Unique position of TAG - broad deep technical expertise, birds-eye view. Time is better spent in the combination of these. 17:16:41 q? 17:16:58 ...: Low hanging fruit - prioirtize design review, ones with most impact have design first. Sometimes reviews are happening 6 months later, they are closed. 17:17:21 can the TAG raise and frame the micro level issues to macro level of direction? We as the WG don't expect that the TAG dictates to CSS feature and ARIA. We want the clear direction if that is the part of TAG role. 17:17:33 Lea: I suggest a scoring system so... a whole new language is prioritized over CSS properties. Or FIFO. Big impactful changes. This seems like we can have more impact this way. 17:17:40 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:17:50 ...: When suggesting a system.... it seems like devil was in the details, hard to agree 17:18:00 ....: We should be identifying gaps in platform, where nobody is working. 17:18:06 +1 lea "should be identifying gaps in the overall web platform" 17:18:19 ...: People are seeing part of that platform just for that WG. CSS, etc. 17:18:20 michaelchampion has joined #future-tag 17:18:28 ...: We should be identifying gaps & pain points at a high level 17:18:39 ...: Ex: This thing is not possible today on the platform, someone needs to solve it. 17:18:42 burgeoning work on gaps https://github.com/w3ctag/gaps/ 17:18:45 present+ 17:18:52 ...: Right now, no one is even identifying the pain points, they don't live anywhere 17:19:00 ...: burgeoning work on gaps https://github.com/w3ctag/gaps/ 17:19:17 ...: I'm hoping this gets broader engagement. This step has been made to find gaps 17:19:38 Lea: I think it would be useful to provide high level arch guidance. 5 minutes discussion early on can be way more valuable that an hour of telcon early on 17:20:13 ...: Right now explainers are written without understanding how TAG reviews happen. There is wasted time making super long explainer, in practice reviewed during call time. There is no summary, tldr, skimmed &processed in the TAG call meeting time. 17:20:22 ...: We should change guidance there. 17:20:36 ...: I have written a lot more details in the issue linked that has been talked bout back in July 17:20:42 Jeff: Mark, can you describe disagreement 17:21:00 alice has joined #future-tag 17:21:02 bkardell_ has joined #future-tag 17:21:13 kgovind7 has joined #future-tag 17:21:15 present+ 17:21:18 Mark: It's almost as if you were in those discussions 10 years ago. Reviews are really imporatn function, but the way TAG goes about it is inefficient. TAG should be looking more to do things like delegating more & oversee more, intead of using telcom time & flying across the world to do spec reviews 17:21:25 I wonder what authority the TAG has over WGs. 17:21:30 ....: Not that reviews aren't important & dont' have a roll, more about the time it consumes 17:21:48 Jem: we have no authority. :) We can only help. 17:21:49 Jem: "leading without authority" as they say in product :) 17:21:50 ...: There needs to be more of a leadership roll - guiding groups, guiding teams, thinking about charters. So much time is down in the weeds. 17:21:58 q? 17:21:58 q? 17:21:59 Jeff: Open up to general queue-ing 17:22:00 q+ 17:22:04 ack mnot 17:22:22 Dan: Response briefly. There is no argument here. I agree with Lea & Mark. 17:22:22 ack nigel 17:22:22 nigel, you wanted to ask about the approach to "triage" and how quickly "we're not interested, go ahead" responses can be generated 17:22:29 Max has joined #future-tag 17:22:55 nigel: I want to ask something - about triage. I have submitted specs to review, and really TAG isn't interested. They are fine, they go through easily. 17:22:56 xiaochengh has joined #future-tag 17:23:20 ...: Someone could probably look & work that out in a very short period of time. But I don't think that happens. I would be interested to know if that does happen - because it can still take a while to get that kind of response. 17:24:00 q+ to respond to Nigel 17:24:01 ...: Identifying gaps in web platforms but not solutions.... there is probably a role that doesn't exist. A deliberate engineer split in some organizations with rrequirements analysis and solution design. 17:24:14 chrishtr has joined #future-tag 17:24:16 q+ to encourage bringing in content experts where the subject area is outside the expertise of the tag membership 17:24:39 ...: What you're suggesting is identifying requirements gaps that are not meant. I think - let's look at technical design & requirements (TAG), and something else that looks at the overal requirements on the web platform 17:24:39 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:24:50 ...: The separation is quite helpful, I find. Even if same people. Separation helps set the right mindset for people. 17:24:57 ...: I present that as an option. 17:25:15 q? 17:25:15 Dan: One thing that stops fast feedback - when we are closing a TAG review, we want to provide a resolution on that review. 17:25:20 q+ 17:25:43 s/Dan/DKA 17:26:06 ...: We don't want to say resolution satisfied unless there is consensus. It can very often be difficult to get consensus. Time zones, someone is away that week, etc. That is a good goal to have, but it would change the way we need to think about TAG feedback maybe - that people don't view that it's "The TAG opinion". 17:26:20 ...: "The TAG opinion" - we need to be careful that it's a real consensus 17:26:44 Hadley: Specifically on TTML - one of the reasons of this frustration 17:27:14 ...: Most of TTML is self-contained. A few years ago, something seemed like it overlaped with CSS, so we made sure connections happened with CSS and that was resolved 17:27:27 ...: So one of the things here was to make sure there isn't overlap with web platform. if not, then great. 17:27:42 q? 17:27:42 ...: There is a danger in all of them that we end up being a rubber-stamper approval body 17:28:04 ...: That is not a good use of TAG time, not something we add a lot of value. We don't ahve time to say 'we checked your work and we said you did a good job' - as we're not experts in the area 17:28:11 Max has joined #future-tag 17:28:24 ack tantek 17:28:26 nigel: The way it's set up in process IS kind of like it's rubber stamp. The process task of a group to move forwards involves a TAG stamp. 17:28:44 tantek: I'm thankful of Lea's description of gettin glost in too many low-level reviews 17:28:56 michaelchampion has joined #future-tag 17:29:05 ...: I'm glad that TAG published ... principles and privacy principles were created 17:29:26 all the WG is supposed to be part of horizontal review. 17:29:27 ...: Kudos for finding the time to work on high level stuff while having this incredible low level queue. Keep figuring out how to find time there 17:30:03 qq+ to reply on TAG findings 17:30:08 ...: There needs to .... those high level docs are an essential role at the W3C. There are other levels, like TAG findings, that used to be published more. "we need to rule on this in general for people to stop making the same mistake" - that is good 17:30:12 ack hadleybeeman 17:30:12 hadleybeeman, you wanted to respond to Nigel 17:30:13 +1Tantek 17:30:16 ack lea 17:30:16 lea, you wanted to react to tantek to reply on TAG findings 17:30:20 q? 17:30:34 goto has joined #future-tag 17:30:49 Lea: To reply on tag findings, they are very heavyweight. Part of vision behind the [?] repo, it would be a lightweight way to find a finding. You could find similar findings. 17:30:59 tantek: I think we need both, complementary 17:31:00 q+ to explain how we managed to do the privacy principles and ask if we should try to replicate that? 17:31:42 q+ 17:32:15 Lea: We could .... there are old findings in the previous term (ex: findings with double key caching, urging browsers to find ways to solve.... but there was not consensus, so we coudn't progress) that aren't in the repo 17:32:22 ack ChrisL 17:32:22 ChrisL, you wanted to encourage bringing in content experts where the subject area is outside the expertise of the tag membership 17:32:37 +1 chrisL 17:32:48 ChrisL: I wanted to point out that there are two things I see - one is horizontal stuff - this is about API design, you've made the same mistake others have made. This is core competence of TAG 17:33:12 ...: The other is detailed expert-level stuff, where the TAG does not and cannot have expertise. They aren't in the position to tell. Maybe there should be more emphasis on bringing in experts 17:33:13 q+ 17:33:31 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:33:35 ...: I've been called in to various color things. It's unusual knowledge. compression, network... you can't have in a small group expertise in all things. 17:33:41 Can the TAG have the taskforce like ARIA WG? 17:33:52 Jem: Yes, the TAG occasionally establishes task forces. 17:33:53 Lea: That would be wonderful. Challenge is that it's more work for people - already overbooked. 17:34:02 +1 to having a pool of people... 17:34:02 ChrisL: I volunteer as tribute! 17:34:04 ack Yves 17:34:41 Yves: To reply about issue of recent reviews - TAG welcomes early reviews as well - it's a better time to do reviews and avoid mistakes, if you get review after 2 years, it can be a waste of time 17:34:54 ...: To put that as a change to the way reviews are done in general, that could be a change 17:35:08 ...: It would be betetr for everyone to get early feedback 17:35:25 ack goto 17:35:25 Sam: +1 a bunch of what has been said 17:35:30 +1 for early review request. Can TAG should communicate that broadly 17:35:34 ? 17:36:00 Sam: High level vs lower level stuff, delegating. Design principles and other principles have been incredibly valuable 17:36:13 Since people were asking for a TAG finding that didn't get finished - how about Draft TAG finding, 30 June 2003 17:36:15 Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound 17:36:17 goto: You would be surprised how many times these have diffused tension 17:36:18 q? 17:36:20 +1 delegating 17:36:23 https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html 17:36:29 goto: We send that link to other people. 17:36:38 qq+ 17:36:58 goto: Early design reviews have been incredibly helpful. Much has been done that has been very helpful. I'm personally getting a lot of value. We don't get as much value with low level reviews. Part of that is the construction of the process. 17:37:15 q+ 17:37:23 ...: Intersecting rubber stamping.... TAG reviews are part of Chrome process. This is unfortunate, as we're flooding you with stuff. 17:37:24 q? 17:37:33 ...: I get most value with Intent-to-prototype and early design revies 17:37:45 q+ to point out that this idea that "we're drowning in it" is a meme, not a truth 17:37:49 q+ 17:37:52 ...: I would make that part mandatory, and the later part optional. Spec reviews for people that want spec feedback optional. 17:38:15 ...: The situation we're in is due to the weight of the process. So maybe what we want is to change the process, chromium launch process, we can have influence that way. 17:38:30 ack lea 17:38:30 lea, you wanted to react to goto 17:38:36 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:38:57 Lea: I want to +1 that - I've tried to make that point in the past. Design principles... design reviews feed into design principles. 17:39:06 ...: Tag input in intent-to-prototype stage more valuable. 17:39:19 ack mnot 17:39:20 ...: Sometimes we get reviews that are just a checkbox - and they say they can't change spec as they're not editors 17:39:35 mnot: What purpose a TAG review is? 17:39:56 ...: If you conceptualize it as authoritative, and a barrier to progression, then it's ahigh expectation & TAG puts a high level of resources into it. 17:40:06 ...: Chrome making it part of it's process... then external pressures. 17:40:36 ...: I'd like to shift to true community consensus. If you think of TAG as just one part of that process, then.... it lowers the temperature of that 17:40:43 ack plh 17:40:50 ...: As long as you think of TAG as a golden step to go through, then that expectation is too high 17:41:02 +1 to mnot on lowering expectations on the TAG review 17:41:24 plh: The goal - give opportunity for TAG to weigh in on spec. I didn't expect tag to do detailed review of spec. To go in with an early review - "sounds like a good/bad idea" early on. 17:41:30 ...: That is really useful information to know early on in process 17:42:12 ...: I'd rather have it so that if TAG doesn't respond, that's ok. 17:42:30 ...: Tag doesn't have to give a full rubber stamp on details of specification 17:42:42 ...: If you want a detailed review, good for you. But that's not as useful in my opinion 17:42:43 +1 to ask about what communication channels the TAG is using to talk to WGs to build the community consensus 17:42:59 ...: I encourage TAG to engage community in process, and engage in triaging. 17:43:14 ...: We have to engage the community, or else we will never scale. 17:43:33 q+ Jem 17:43:34 q+to ask about what communication channels the TAG is using to talk to WGs to build the community consensus 17:43:35 ...: One person from the ATF said yesterday - what would be the est way to cycle specs from w3c to ATF so we can take a look? 17:43:46 s/atf/ietf 17:43:58 ...: The answer is TAG. The person who is working on it has said it's good enough for review - so it's a good time to review 17:44:15 ack mt 17:44:15 mt, you wanted to point out that this idea that "we're drowning in it" is a meme, not a truth 17:44:18 ...: Figuring out right time to review is hard. So wait until people ask for review from the TAG. AND encourage people to ask for review early, and not late. 17:44:54 mt: When you say something is a bad idea, it requires extraordinary evidence, when you say something is a good idea, people just accept that. 17:45:12 mt: If you say something is a bad idea and stop, then they won't take you seriously the next time 17:45:58 why don't the TAG set up the process for declined or rejected proposal? 17:45:59 ...: I want to push back on the idea that the TAG is drowning in design reviews. We looked at stats - some reviews have been taking quite a long time. But at the same time, those were really difficult reviews for the reasons I just mentioned. 17:46:06 qq+ to ask MT one thing 17:46:20 ...: (reasons restated - because 'this is bad' feedback really requires a lot of evidence and thought) 17:46:24 q+ 17:46:50 ...: We have a responsibility to ensure that, if we think it's a bad idea, that message is heard. We can't force it to be listened to, which is fine. 17:47:24 ack mnot 17:47:24 mnot, you wanted to react to mt to ask MT one thing 17:47:38 ack noamr 17:47:39 mnot: You said you were able to meet service levels... what is the opportunity cost. 17:47:44 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:47:52 +1 mnot: what is the opportunity cost? 17:48:03 yeah, that's the right framing 17:48:44 noamr: My feeling as someone who produces reviews for TAG is that I am drowning people in it. A definitino of a feature - one explainer per feature - is not the right way to discuss things with the TAG 17:48:52 q+ to mention framing of elapsed time vs value provided for time spent 17:48:53 ...: I also feel like this async process is not the best way to have design reviews. 17:49:19 Yeah, the definition of "feature" is a good point. Right now, it is being defined at "what goes into an I2S". 17:49:36 q? 17:49:48 ...: I feel like.... for things like core web vitals or view transitions... to have a general discussion about where we're going with these features. Some can be async or explainers, but the ticket system of features produces very .... not useful. Signal to noise ratio that isn't enough. Versus a working group. 17:50:17 ...: Working groups could have a mandate to say what should go do TAG. Not just a new value - a new feature. So putting TAG in the process of working groups 17:50:46 ack DKA 17:50:46 DKA, you wanted to explain how we managed to do the privacy principles and ask if we should try to replicate that? 17:50:48 ...: Not just TAG cares about design of the web as a whole, we all do. But TAG has the mandate & the time to look at it from that perspective. But the other working groups can be part of this process by deciding what fits going into the tag 17:51:22 DKA: Tontek you mentioned privacy principles, thank you for that feedback. One of the ways we delivered that was putting together a task force, including ppl outside of tag, we picked to work on that. Then TAG came together & reach consensus. 17:51:40 s/Tontek/Tantek/ 17:51:50 ...: Another idea is involving the community more. We have a number of ways we could involve the community in this. Maybe creating CG and delegating authority of triaging to that. 17:52:06 q? 17:52:08 +1 to Dan's suggestion to have more resources like community group. 17:52:08 q- 17:52:10 ...: Are there other things we can be doing like privacy principles, ways to leverage community more? 17:52:13 On principles 17:52:26 A couple of documents that I think are missing are principles on Deprecations and Incubation 17:52:38 ...: Given we're an elected group too - there is specific working in the W3C process, TAG members are not supposed to delegate authority / work to other members of community. But we have a history of running task forces. 17:53:01 ...: Another point: The TAG does not have formal authority to block things. We don't have that already. But maybe we've set ourselves up to seem like that. 17:53:09 Mark: Or the Chromium process has. 17:53:25 ack Jem 17:53:25 Jem, you wanted to ask about what communication channels the TAG is using to talk to WGs to build the community consensus 17:53:27 DKA: The chromium process can be a separate convo. but good feedback 17:54:05 Jem: I'm here as a customer of TAG's deliverables. I've never hard about the TAG's work until yesterday, about how TAG is giving direction. 17:54:13 ...: How will TAG reach out to working groups to convey process & need for help. 17:54:29 ...: I really like the comment by Mark. 17:54:57 ack nigel 17:54:57 nigel, you wanted to mention framing of elapsed time vs value provided for time spent 17:54:58 ...: I hear that maybe TAG needs a process for ... the decision tree. Rather than arguing with people that were rejected. 17:55:30 q+ 17:55:42 q+ 17:55:43 nigel: First - I think I've heard that there's concern about elapsed time for design reviews. A lot of response I've heard is that value is being provided by taking longer. Not just spending time because you're queued up, but doing stuff that is giving back to community 17:56:29 ack 17:56:33 ack dandclark 17:56:33 ...: Second - TAG's contract is with the wider community, but transactions are with sub-parts of the community. It's a weird tension, and not obvious that is going on. If there is feedback of frustration, it might be worth servicing that some more. 17:56:51 dandclark: I'll echo that prompt review is more valuable than the same review delivered later. 17:56:52 so what would be the future of TAG? ;-) 17:57:02 q- 17:57:03 s/servicing/surfacing 17:57:07 ...: More likely to be taken. 17:57:10 Jem: I think we'll have to keep discussing it. 17:57:34 ...: Other end - on the Edge team I encourage people to submit reviews as early as possible. We need to ensure that smaller things are not blocked by large things that take forever 17:57:46 ...: Higher level arch review - I agree that is where the TAG provides value. 17:57:56 ...: things the WG might miss, tunnel visioned 17:57:57 q? 17:58:53 fserb has joined #future-tag 17:59:07 dmurph: these reviews I'm helping with, or I'm putting... it's a struggle to know what is the right amount of context to put. It would be interesting to have more guidance around ways to provide good context re edge cases or what needs to be described re the future. Sometimes you can't tl;dr stuff 18:01:00 kizu0 has left #future-tag 18:02:36 great discussion. Thanks TAG members and especially chair jyasskin and scribe dmurph! 18:14:57 rrsagent, make minutes 18:14:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-future-tag-minutes.html nigel 18:18:58 fserb has joined #future-tag 18:42:46 Yves has left #future-tag 20:19:53 fserb has joined #future-tag 20:33:08 eemeli has left #future-tag 21:45:51 fserb has joined #future-tag 22:04:52 dmurph has joined #future-tag