Meeting minutes
Should we meet on July 3, 2025
spectranaut_: should we meet?
… Daniel is running the meeting next week
… and the week after that is the day before a U.S. holiday
… but many people might be taking that day off
… do people want a meeting?
… no one else is out, so we’ll keep it
WPT Open PRs
spectranaut_: skipping new issue triage, we’ll do next week
… but nothing new for open WPT PRs, so we’ll skip
pkra: there was an issue filed coming out of Jamie Teh’s question about case insensitivity
… Rahim filed an issue
… our issue is 2548
<pkra> w3c/
<pkra> web-platform-tests/
pkra: Jamie found a crash in Firefox
… and he asked whether they’re supposed to be insensitive
… Rahim said we should have tests for that
spectranaut_: we’ll talk about this issue next week in triage
Deep Dive planning
spectranaut_: there is a deep dive planned for July 17
… computed roles for tables run by keithamus
… anything else? no
FYI Future TPACs: Kobe, Japan - Nov 10-14, 2025, Dublin, Ireland - 26-30 Oct, 2026
jamesn: 2026 has been announced
… notably not in the U.S.
New board(s)
spectranaut_: we made 2 kanban boards by popular demand
… ARIA Normative PR Tracking
… and ARIA Editorial PR Tracking
… the PRs in each follow two different processes
spectranaut_: the columns are Draft → Needs Review → Needs update from review → Reviewed, need PR checklist items
… there are currently 5 PRs in Needs Review
pkra: one observation
… you can go to the View 1 tab and open its menu
… you can add labels by going through Fields
spectranaut_: this is great
pkra: all the boards are set to Private — is that intentional?
Daniel: that’s a W3C default, I‘ll update these
spectranaut_: jamesn and I will make sure every PR is in a board
… in an appropriate spot
… then the Normative PR tracking board
… and the columns are Draft → Needs Review → Needs updates from review → Reviewed, other needs → Waiting for Implementation
… any comments or questions?
pkra: it’s very good, thank you
New PR Triage
spectranaut_: no new PRs
… except for pkra, which we already merged — thank you
Find reviewers for stuck things
spectranaut_: one nice thing about these new boards is we can see where our changes get stuck
… in Normative, by far, most things get stuck in Needs Review
… so one thing that jamesn and I discussed when we made board is that we should have mechanism for replacing idle reviewer after N days
… or re-raising it to unblock it
pkra: looking at a few that caught my eye
… we have quite a few old PRs
… that might just need a rebase
… to get things moving again
… almost like “good first issue”
spectranaut_: right, a new adoptive parent
spectranaut_: let’s look at some of these oldest Needs Review PRs
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: doesn’t have any reviews
… some discussion about rebasing
front-endian-jane: I’ll take this one
spectranaut_: will you confirm whether it’s actually normative?
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: added `needs ACT review` label
… would be good to have a positive review on the PR
giacomo-petri: I’ll approve it
pkra: I’ll review
spectranaut_: great, then with ACT review we can move it along
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: reviewers aren’t on the call today, so we’ll ping later
giacomo-petri: I think some changes are required on this one
spectranaut_: let’s not move forward on this one right now
… w3c/
needs implementation consensus
… I’ll assign this one to Rahim
<spectranaut_> w3c/
pkra: this is one of the PRs I couldn’t move over during the monorepo merge
… so Rahim manually redid it
spectranaut: ... ah I see, it was originally done by someone else
… need to resolve a question from Firefox
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_ moving on to next issue
… we have one positive review
spectranaut_: I had offered to review this one so I will do it
Adam_Page: I’ll review it too
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: there are implementors, so it likely needs implementation changes
… I’ll confirm with Scott
spectranaut_: w3c/
… this is another change for implementors
… need their review
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: a lot of reviewers on this one
… another change coming from HTML
giacomo-petri: I’ll review this
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: this has 2 positive reviews
… think this just needs 1 more review
front-endian-jane: I’ll review
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: yes, we talked a lot about this
… still needs some resolution
… I’ll ping the participants
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: core-aam change
… I’ll review and land it
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: I’ll ping Rahim on this
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: 2 approving reviews
… looks like this is ready to land, just need to confirm with jcraig
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: let’s skip this one
spectranaut_: w3c/
pkra: this an interesting one, needs discussion
… there are complex scoping implications
… this is a glaring example
… the `group` role
spectranaut_: we’ll discuss next week since it’s agenda’d
<spectranaut_> w3c/
spectranaut_: this is a SHOULD
… needs 1 more reviewer
pkra: we may need to change “parent” to “ancestor”?
… this relates back to aria#2483
spectranaut_: once we resolve that issue, there may be many instances like this to refactor
… so maybe we can still merge this one in anticipation of that
pkra: does it need ACT review?
spectranaut_: it’s not necessarily a validation issue
jamesn: the reason why it’s SHOULD is often UAs introduce singletons
… add the parent, then close the parent
… not sure there’s consistent behavior
spectranaut_: surprising that this is not already in the spec
… it sounds like we have consensus on this
… I’m inclined to land it
jamesn: I’ve approved it
… but there are conflicts