Meeting minutes
Preparing for beta of new CG specification styles
<Ian> Ian slides
cwilso: the "transfer for standardization" change addresses my feedback re ambiguity on standardization progress
<Ian> Ian: Were you thinking of linking to implementation traction model?
<Ian> Dom: not initially. It's mostly document what signals we are using for these types of specs
Ian: we have had questions about re-using the metadata for non-CG specs - no reason not to extend this
… to TR specs if there is demand
<Ian> Yoav: I want the metadata for WG specs!
Yoav: also useful to look at sub-spec features
<Ian> Dom: For browser specs we have the advantage of web features project. I would expect we could highlight different features for different specs.
<Ian> ..if we were to migrate to WGs, we should find a way to be more granular
<elf-pavlik> which page had links to old and new examples?
Yoav: would it make sense to link to wpt.fyi?
<Ian> Dom: We do link to wpt.fyi for the tests
<Ian> ...we don't document that explicitly as interoperability
Yoav: the interop story is complex, but surfacing some of that complexity might help to avoid making it look more simple than it is
<Ian> Ian: Where would a mortal go to learn the answer?
<Ian> Dom: Caniuse or MDN
<elf-pavlik> https://
<Ian> Dom: These are great questions. I would like to wait to start interviews to get info
<Ian> ...we can find out from the people with the profile we have in mind what they do
<Ian> ...am I interpreting your sense that the signal might appear to be "too positive" about interop?
<Ian> Yoav: I think it's fine.
<Ian> ....but it could be interesting to know "where did it ship"
<Ian> ...and "did everything ship"?
<Ian> Yoav: The MDN table would be helpful
<Ian> Dom: Right now the implementation traction bit tries to be compact
<Ian> ..but this pull request has more information that could be represented:
<elf-pavlik> https://
<Ian> w3c/
<Ian> Yoav: People would prefer to click on a link.
<Ian> Dom: I can add another row to the table..
<Ian> Ian: How much of the metadata is automated?
<Ian> Dom: Our goal is "as much as possible" but some will need to be manual at some stages of the spec's life
<Ian> ...the main thing will be the standardization plan
<Ian> ...we build on the shoulders of the browser ecosystem for much of this. But for non-CG specs it will initially be more manual work for editors.
<Ian> (Ian: that's phase 3)
Ian: still gathering infos about candidate devs and regulators for interviews
Yoav: I can find people at Shopify
AoB
Ian: we will do a short CG revamp recap at the upcoming W3C AC meeting
Ian: suggest our next call should be in May
Debbie: re regulators, it's not just regulators, but any kind of gov agencies who might give recommendations based on specs
… there is the open source week at the UN in June - might be a good thing to raise at that meeting
Ian: was talking about that very week yesterday; I would want to talk with people sooner than that, but may still be a good opportunity
… e.g. during the Community day of that week
Elf: what's the earliest CGs could start using these new styles?
Ian: we haven't considered this yet - want to do some early testing to remove hiccups
<Ian> Dom: Maybe not "after the beta" but rather "phase 2 or phase 3"
<Ian> ...which Cg would you like to argue for early adoption?
<Ian> ...we could do more work on metadata
<Ian> Elf: Solid CG
<Ian> ...there's be a solid symposium at the end of April...with more promotion and traction; having a new design would be nice.
<Ian> ...I'd need to chat with the CG chairs
<elf-pavlik> https://