CR: Announcement: Pete is now the third co-chair of PING
CR: Lots of calls lately, focusing on improving PING’s effectiveness. Discussion is not quite final. Tom responsible for writing up the outcome.
CR: Traffic light categories.
CR: PING calls: should that be how privacy reviews are done?
CR: Would like to conclude today: how are we going to manage incoming review requests?
PS: Emphasis on being more active in other orgs and using these calls for strategy and management.
PS: What infrastructure to track the issues we open in future.
PS: Process, like getting involved earlier and this traffic light proposal.
TW: Active in other orgs?
PS: Community groups, WICG &c. WICG stuff often doesn’t leave WICG until it’s widely used online.
PS: Horizontal review. What’s the process? Maybe traffic lights? Or maybe stronger vetos, but defo earlier and more often.
ND: WICG is pronounced “wick-ug”, not “why sea gee”? [i’m genuinely not sure how people are pronouncing it]
ND: Def agree that WICG is a good place to get started earlier because !!!
ND: How to engage with them effectively? Do they even want our help?
CR: Does anyone know how WICG works?
TW: Have not had much in the way of ongoing conversations. Haven’t got a plan.
CR: Need an action item to figure out how WICG does its work and how we can engage to ensure privacy issues are addressed early, and befor elarge deployment.
CR: Pete, Tara, Christine, Wendy, Sam: to follow up.
PS: Willing to reach out regardless of pronunciation and get more familiar with their process.
PS: In a dream world, how should things work? No WICG changes without PING sign-off (lol, extreme)? No PING view ever (lol, extreme)?
WS: Good! WICG has a readme describing their intended workflow. https://github.com/WICG/admin
WS: Thinking ahead to TPAC: WICG will be meeting there; we should engage with them there.
CR: Tara, let’s add to our TPAC to-do list.
CR: Have not established our dream approach.
CR: Notable that horizontal review doesn’t happen until work reaches a working group because that’s where standards are meant to happen.
PS: Important for us to have a vision because their vision will be “leave us alone plz”, so we need to lead this. Right now, is the worst case scenario: things don’t leave community groups until there are multiple interoperable implementations, at which point people don’t want to change things.
SW: Things don’t come out of WICG without TAG review? Probably, we should engage with TAG at TPAC, because we’re not aligned. Especially see the TAG private browsing doc.
ND: Need to say how we want to do things, because that spec can be a request for assistance from other groups: this is what we want to do; plz assist.
CR: Tom writing doc, which will be basis for that request for assistance.
CR: Contact picker. Should we review now?
ND: Yeah, sure? Not a privacy zero-zone, but could use help. Definitely not the worst case.
https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-contact-picker-api/3507/4
CR: Looks like we have a plan for engagement with the WICG.
CR: What would be useful for a PING process doc Tom?
TL: heres the dream
CR: What are our expectations with the self-review?
PS: What interval?
TL: reviews should be requested anytime something is looking spec-ish, even if very early. Even better, it should explicitly be unfinished and unimplemented. At the least, should be HR requirement at boundaries.
PS: every 6 months
TL: Six months seems reasonable.
TL: Questionnaire should be how review is requested. So, to create a “PING/other HR group, please review” GitHub issue template
[Sam claps]
ND: Sounds like we’re on the right track. Note that the wide and horizontal review process improvement process is also happening, and we should coordinate with them. Not sure how much that’s separate, but we should align.
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Wide_and_Horizontal_Review
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130
CR: Further comments on the process plan?
PS: To bridge Nick and Tom: I’ve been active in the HR conversation. No discussion of the time interval. Can I mention it as something discussed, and that we like?
[npd: I don’t particularly understand the time interval review, fwiw]
[pes: that, as a condition of continuing as a CR / IG / WG, groups need to have a HR review every 6 months. Even if its “no sig changes”]
CR: Any other questions about the process?
CR: Other business today?
TL: What about high resolution timers tho?
CR: can you describe the HRT situation more?
TL: HRT group closed the PING opened issues, but didn’t address the underlying concerns. There was a side conversation between PING, HRT group, and other folks. There is a now a new tracking issue. The conversation does not seem to be going well.
https://github.com/w3c/hr-time/issues/79 <- new issue, post convo
TL: Unclear how to proceed?
CR: Wendy, Sam: halp plx?
CR: Maybe with the above process in place, we could do something?
WS: This is now a Director Decision: tm:. If the decision is one that they should proceed and PING as a whole or individual members are unhappy, they can sustain the objection and advise members of the AC to vote against, suggest alternatives, try to show an alternative path to consensus. Something acceptable to perf folks and privacy polks. Unfortunately, we are still far form consensus.
[pes: how does “convincing ACs” general work? Politicking and similar at TPAC? serious question, not joke] [npd: or outreach to contacts in the industry. but convincing ACs is generally a last resort and not really an easy or ideal situation.]
PS: I heard that ultimately this decision is the Director’s? But the next step is lobbying ACs? Is that just strongly-worded emails?
WS: The AC forum email list is available to chairs and members of the AC. For broadcast messages. If the message is participants don’t think this should go to recommendation, the other way to do that is filing a review comment and having it sent to the list. Filing it early gives people something to send to the list.
CR: Is the director a last resort before or after the AC?
WS: Both: transition to proposed rec and then a PR goes through AC review and the director again reviews the results of the AC review and then considers the outcome at the AC for consensus there. There is a further appeals process, but that’s pretty high threshold.
SW: We have an AC and advisory board member (David Singer) who has been suggesting we be more aggressive. Possible champion here?
CR: Precursor: compose discrete description of problem and fixes
SW: May want to do another pass trying towards consensus. Not sure about progress. They admit in this issue that there are privacy concerns, can we have consensus?
PS: As long as it stays where it is, that’s okay. Would rather it be re-done there. Don’t want to keep having these conversations on GitHub forever. Just an exhausting game and the other players have more time. Can go a couple more rounds?
TL: we could do another round for consensus on the HRT issue, but its unlikely to be useful. Authors have seemed to have been unresponsive so far
SW: but there may be some strategic benefit to get to ask “why wont you implement further”
TL: documenting the “why” answer seems valuable, good point SW
ND: Blog post! Some changes based on comments. Any further comments?
https://github.com/w3cping/blog-posts/blob/master/adding-permissions.md
PS: Better here or email or GitHub or what?
ND: Wherever
PS: Looks good, some tweaks, want more process. Will follow up on GH. [npd: great!]
CR: Sounds like almost ready.
SW: Need any tech help to post?
ND: Not sure.
WS: Charter. Remind folks that we have a PING recharter in front of AC. Members with AC reps or AC reps, please vote for PING. Positive review for PING charger. August. Any time now would be a good time for a chair to write to AC forum to remind folks to vote on charter and to join pin for our fun and glamorous work.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/ping-2019/
TW: Such a message is this close to going out.
CR: When shall we few meet again?
WS: Thanks Christine for organising a PING & friends meet-up in Montreal.
CR: Monday 22nd over lunch Room LG Tech
TL: Aug 1 next meeting?
SW: On holiday then.
[Consensus is otherwise universal but silent.]
CR: It Is Confirmed
PS: One last thing. Last week said it’s not worth keeping track of GitHub issues. But actually I think that we should.
CR: How about in the repo.
PS: Sure, whatever.
CR: I will post the minutes.
SW: Use pull requests.