Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- yoav: So if anyone has questions about current process, or should I start by describing things?
- rbyers: What are the goals?
- yoav: Get better visibility and better feedback into early-stage spec proposals, so we get more participation from the larger webdev
- community, and more participation from browser vendors/etc.
- cwilso: A few goals, got a litle confused at CSS yesterday.
- cwilso: The goal for us Googlers, how we do incubation, is a little separate from the goasl o fthe WICG.
- cwilso: WICG is an easy way to jump on ideas and get people to participate and discuss.
- cwilso: All we do is watch repos and help people do the transition to a real WG when it's time for that.
- cwilso: WICG isn't intended to be heavy process. We make sure people are respectful, that's abou tit.
- ChrisL has joined (clilley@public.cloak)
- yoav: And resolving IPR commitments whent he bots get mad.
- cwilso: Yeah. When you join, you sign some IP commitments, and that gets transitioned into a WG for a real spec.
- mikeChampion: Whiat's the success criteria?
- jcraig has joined (~jcraig@public.cloak)
- cwilso: For me the most important thing is the ability to fail gracefully.
- cwilso: Incubations may not go anywhere. May not be interesting enough, or have neough momentum or people driving it forward, so they'll
- just sit there.
- cwilso: Haven't gotten to the point of cleaning those out yet, but will need to.
- cwilso: Real success is success on proposals, real engagement. Not just "where Google does work".
- cwilso: And they transition to WGs to be real standards eventually.
- cwilso: I'm okay with that taking time; want it to be stable.
- astearns: Follow up.
- astearns: You had a number of successes from the WICG, things tha tmoved to the Rec track.
- astearns: I'ma ssuming we should be measuring whether those incubations got the participation you wer elooking for.
- astearns: Both the amount we get on particular proposals, and the breadth of partic between companies and web develoepers, and track what
- we're doing.
- astearns: And if we're not doing great, we should change how we run them.
- yoav: Enough people as in external to th eprocess? If so, I agree, it shoudl be one of the goals.
- yoav: Feedback from outside our echo chamber i sdefinitely one of my goals.
- cwilso_: I'ts important to understand the WICG isn't a room of people standing around waiting for you to have an idea, so we can jump on
- it.
- cwilso_: I tell Google engineers all the time, you're still responsible for drumming up interest, for getting participation.
- cwilso_: There are some people who religiously watch the proposals, plenty that don't.
- cwilso_: So if you want interest, you have to go ping those parties.
- astearns: Have youd one any measurement of what has gone thru yet, to see how it's going?
- cwilso_: Good point; I don't have non-anecdotal yet. We can get that, it's tracked in GitHub.
- cwilso_: My data is just that I don't move a repo into WICG space unless there are multiple interested parties.
- glazou: Yesterday at CSS one of the mentioned goals was to get the right size of contributors, the right people, right expertise, rather
- than the whole WG discussing everything.
- chongz has joined (~chongz@public.cloak)
- glazou: It's already the way the CSSWG works; we host issues on GH, and only the people really contributing are there for each spec.
- glazou: It's also about attracting webdev attention, but we have www-style, GH is open, etc.
- glazou: Is the real difference only the fact that to add something new to the WG is a rechartering, and this bypasses that?
- glazou: I'm not saying that's bad.
- cwilso_: Second point first.
- cwilso_: One challenge is that groups with a large scope can jump around based on what people are interested in.
- cwilso_: ONe goal of incubation is to make sure we're rationalizing, for ourselves...
- cwilso_: We want to make sure there's actual interest in a problem and it's scoped properly before we get a solution together.
- cwilso_: Challeng with owning a large scope like CSSWG is you get a group of people that have a particular way fo looking at problems.
- cwilso_: AT the time we didn't have designers and devs on the WG.
- cwilso_: Opening up for other perspectives is good.
- cwilso_
- tabatkins: the point about large scope enabling jumping around - this is exactly the issue I run into as CSS WG rep
- tabatkins: it can be difficult socially to tell someone "that's not interesting" - running things through incubation instead, which requires
- positiive interest not lack of negative interest expressed, helps choose the right things
- rbyers: ON the point that CSS is already working that way...
- rbyers: When I hire new people, it's daunting to work in CSS. People are afriad to work on www-style.
- rbyers: These are junior engineers, get to have lunch with people on the WG.
- rbyers: But they only feel like they'll get interest with people flying and sitting in the room.
- rbyers: Even I am active here, but I feel like I don't get progress without being here myself.
- rbyers: And if that's how I feel, a Google engineer with experience, how does that feel to people from FAcebook, or another webdev?
- rbyers: It's easy to get the feel that something is open from the inside.
- rbyers: Like, how many actual proposals came from outside the group?
- glazou: Quite a bit.
- glazou: Championing by an editor, or sending ideas in, or...
- cwilso_: Excelelnt to hear.
- cwilso_: And something I mentioned before, this isn't an end-run around a WG. It has to go back to a group
- cwilso_: You can't incubate a style feature for a while, and never have CSS look at it.
- cwilso_: So that when it actually gets to the "real spec" transition, it woul be crazy.
- jcraig: q+ to talk about my discouraging experience proposing (:flow()) to CSS in 2003? and again in 2006? (more or less ::nth-fragment)...
- Incubation would path have been great
- cwilso_: Part of the process is to include people relevant to the topic.
- cwilso_: We do hear crazy ideas, of course. But those get filtered, in the incubation stage and the rec stage.
- yoav: It's great CSSWG ahs moved to GH, makes things simpler. But if you want to keep track of waht's happening, it's a flood of emails that
- nobody should submit themselves to.
- jcraig q+ to also mention why 4 vendors were interesting in channeling AOM through WICG
- yoav: For people external, it's a big barrier. Having a different group for a wider audience mamkes a difference.
- astearns: I expect we'll want to move on, but...
- astearns: You mentioned incubation si the point, the goal.
- astearns: NOt necessarily having it happen in the WICG.
- astearns: People are happy with incubation happening in the meeting, for example.
- astearns: I'm not entirely clear on what that means, tho.
- astearns: How is the working mode of the WICG and Houdini sufficiently similar, such that the both fit the incubation model.
- astearns: How coudl other groups fit that model if they dont' want to move to the WICG?
- cwilso_: I want to be clear tha tmoving to the WICG shouldn't be a big deal, no charter or anything.
- cwilso_: It's just a CG. You can do incubation in any CG.
- astearns: What would you consider "incubation", specifically?
- astearns: No need for details here, just have them outlined somewhere. So we can measure against intent.
- cwilso_: Goals are: things I think are importoant about incubation as a concept.
- cwilso_: Two parts.
- cwilso_: One is the ability to fail gracefully. To explore ideas and not get on a slippery slope to shipping just because you started.
- cwilso_: Another is making sure it's an open process tha tcan include a lot of people.
- cwilso_: Particularly with our supergroups, it's daunting to say "I want to join WebPlatform, and became an expert on everything, so it's
- not crazy to make a proposal there". Not many people can do that.
- cwilso_: I think making this possible is important.
- cwilso_: So graceful failure,a nd open outside the scope of a known charter.
- yoav: One of the advantages of usign the discourse instance is you're getting interested people already subscribed to that, which help
- propagate that content.
- yoav: They can help you get that message out there.
- yoav: I'm not sure how that would look like if incubation were to happen elsewhere.
- yoav: Or we could say it could happen elsewhere from an org perspective, but should be announced on some discourse instance or elsewhere.
- astearns: I like that discourse, but it has problems. It's a firehose, too.
- bkardell_: Can be, depending on how yous ign up for updates.
- astearns: And there is a problem getting the experts in the topics that you need to participate.
- astearns: I think you need more CSS people looking at things there. But also a11y, etc.
- astearns: It's easy to say "when we need it, we can draw these in", but a lot of times people won't know they need this expertise.
- cwilso_: Right. Discourse is the firehose of ideas, but not the discussion of those ideas.
- cwilso_: Maybe the solution is tagging and filtering, and sending a regular report to the WGs to pull interest from those areas.
- cwilso_: So if something might need CSS attention, send email to CSS about it.
- astearns: Good idea.
- gregwhitworth: I think what you just said is a graeat idea, we have that internally.
- gregwhitworth: Often they're things that already exist and the proposer wasn't aware.
- gregwhitworth: Second, I don't want us to discount the Brand© of what the WICG can become.
- gregwhitworth: It's a low-barrier place.
- gregwhitworth: If it's the one place to go to find information, our Google - they're popular because it's easy to start.
- gregwhitworth: If people think "I want something in the standard, I should use WICG", that's powerful.
- jcraig: Yesterday's brief discussion in the CSSWG was as heated as I'd ever seen it.
- jcraig: I thought Alex's intro was speaking to me from 10 years ago.
- jcraig: Even in the ocntext of CSS, I proposed :flow() in 2003, and later in 2006.
- jcraig: 2006 was almost identical to what eventually became :nth-fragment().
- jcraig: But it got almost no feedback, and that was discouraging.
- jcraig: It may have been too early at that time, and that's fine.
- jcraig: I encouraged at least th epotential of incubation for anyone.
- jcraig: Other topic is we're working on an a11y OM, got people from Apple, Google, Moz...
- jcraig: We're interested in bringing it - we sent it as a contribution to WICG yesterday, befor eour breakout this morning.
- jcraig: Goal is that we'd all attempted to solve the same problem before, as separate work.
- jcraig: Proposals from several, G has an extension for a11y.
- jcraig: So we decided to work together, avoid the bureaucracy of a full WG, and do it fast an lightweight, because we dont' even know what
- we want to do yet.
- jcraig: So my +1 to incubation.
- mikeChampion: Boring process reason for working in WICG. If you make a contribution there, you're making a non-revocable patent commitment.
- In a WG it doesn't really trigger until it's a Rec.
- mchampion: We're all friends, but the larger we get, th emore traditional companies get in, the more important this things is.
- frremy: I want to comment onw hat Rick and James said.
- frremy: It's definitely hard to propose and get forward in a group.
- frremy: You don't know who to contact, or the group's priorities.
- frremy: But an issue is, the people with expertise, it doesn't make diff which group we're in.
- astearns
- idly wondering whether we can harness the 'greater participation' of incubation to jump-start test suites for proposals before they move out
- of incubation
- frremy: The chapmions already have a lot of things to do. So I"m not sure changing the venue will change much about this.
- frremy: So if we change the community involvment, how do we make sure there's sufficient # of experts to keep it going.
- yoav: You're right, it's in a way an unsolveable problem. But at the same time, people have to start somewhere.
- yoav: You lower the barrier, they can go from proposal to being an expert on the subject a few years later.
- rbyers: Having seperable convos - I can't subscribe to CSSWG repo, I can't keep up - but I can subscribe to a few WICG repos.
- rbyers: It's silly, sure, but I think there are lots of experts that don't pay attention to the firehose.
- rbyers: I'm an expert at some parts of CSS, but I don't pay attention. I assume people will point me to it.
- rbyers: I'll say we learned this from WHATWG - it's easier to get random Moz engineers involved in one small issue or discussion, where you
- couldn't get them engaged in a larger W3C group.
- leaverou: That sounds liek something to be solved by better tooling, not more WGs.
- slightlyoff: My mental model is everyone is playiing a momentum game. Every new feature starts at 0, gains momentum.
- slightlyoff: You can start in a big group with 0 momentum and try to push it thru, which is hard, or you can grow a community, bit by bit,
- and have it arrive with good momentum.
- slightlyoff: You'll have to grow each feature as a separate effort.
- slightlyoff: I haven't seen people take "small featues" to a big group and succeed; they get ripped apart.
- slightlyoff: So having that momentum build is very valuable.
- cwilso_: Tooling is part of the problem. It can be solved within the WG easily.
- cwilso_: The challenge is, if the expectation is that to incubate in one area, you have to be an expert on everything, it's ver hard.
- cwilso_: Back in my IE days, I was the guy who sat in the group. They'd tell me what they wanted, and I'd take the idea to the group and
- communicate it.
- cwilso_: The engineers wouldn't jump in and participate.
- cwilso_: So our goal is help encourage that.
- TabAtkins: A side point - it's worthwhile to find the lowest-friction way to do some tech, without having to layer extra tooling. Separate
- repos do this well. They have their own problems (hard to move issues between repos), but for the goals we're trying to achieve (less
- firehose, les sintimidation), I think separate repos put us in the friendliest
- *starting point* for what we want.
- astearns: I think there's a trap we should strive to avoid, where wahat we do in incubation is done over here, then the proposals graduate
- to specs and we do the Rec track nonsense over here.
- astearns: The line between those two things is ufzzy, and we'll make mistakes about what we graduated from incubation, and find it needs moe
- work after "graduating".
- astearns: So we should ensure that the boundary *is* fuzzy, that people are contributing on both sides of th efence, make it a very low
- fence.
- astearns: So an incubating proposal that is really close to being done, but can get more work by incubating, or we have a spec tha tmoved
- too quick and needs to bake more now, let's not throw it back and forth.
- yoav: For webperf, we moved some specs that didn't get enough traction, they got moved to WICG for further incubation.
- astearns: CSS is planning to do that too.
- cwilso_: And web payments probably graduated a bit too early.
- cwilso_: But yeah, I don't think the barrier should be high to move between them.
- cwilso_: We're still socializng the meaning of incubation.
- cwilso_: Some peole think it's awesome, this is much easier now.
- cwilso_: Others think, "why are you demoting my stadnards works" and that's not what we want at all.
- iank_: A lot of people have thought of incubation as either/or; if it's being incubated we can't talk about it as a WG.
- iank_: But that's def wrong - if it needs debate...
- iank_: Say we have a CSS spec in the CG, we can give status update, describe problems, maybe spend time talking about it, have a breakout
- session.
- astearns: Def, bringing incubation topics to the WG to socialize them has to be part of the process.
- rbyers: There's a related osurce of tensions I haven't heard yet - when does a design become stable enought o ship it?
- rbyers: I think we generally concensus that "don't ship until Rec" is too slow.
- rbyers: We try to balance evolving web efficiently, while not making too many mistakes.
- rbyers: We want things to be usccessful, interoperable.
- rbyers: We definitly invite feedback and concerns about how we're doing it in Blink, and I know the other vendors are as well.
- rbyers
- s/usccessful/successful/
- mchampion: Dunno how many of you are in the AC, there's some angst about incubation.
- rbyers
- s/I haven't heard/that hasn't been discussed here/
- mchampion: Soem member who aren't browser implementors or in the ecosystem, feel this is an in-group, a club of peole that they aren't a
- member of.
- mchampion: They'd like devs and smaller players to have more of a voice, that they have in the WG process - you need signoff from a11y,
- security, etc - they see incubation as a way for the big gorillas to ram things thru.
- mchamption: So looking for a way to persuade them WICG is an open community and a model everyone should use.
- yoav: Is there anything that preventes them from participating?
- astearns
- success criteria for wicg - demonstrated, measured indications of the inclusivity mchampion is talking about
- tantek has joined (~tantek@public.cloak)
- mchampion: Paymetns is an example, they thought they were incubating a spec to their satisfaction, but didn't get browsers involved.
- cwilso_: I think they started an incubation, there were two incubations involved there. Why I thought it was graduated early.
- cwilso_: I think this will dispel fears that smaller players have less interest in the process - this was designed to *increase* that.
- cwilso_: Why I agreed to cochair is, when I was participating in SW discussions, that was an in-club.
- cwilso_: Some people fixing appcache, then went semi-private - it wsn't intended to be, it was just scoping the discussion down.
- cwilso_: So how to have scoped discussions, but in the open, and with smart IP policy, that feeds into the WG, without having to say "start
- a WG", because we weren't there yet.
- cwilso_: So I think this helps. But ultimately nothing solves the problem that shipping code is impactful.
- bkardell_: I think it helps the smaller vendors - it gets their voice more involved. That's a really important constituency.
- astearns: I think it has the *potential* to do those, we have to make sure it happens that way.
- mchampion: I have heard complaints from people who are non-members, where people in Discourse didn't get what they thought was a respectful
- hearing.
- n8s has left IRC ("My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
- mchampion: So even if an idea seems a little random, there's a palce to help them find a place, or gently disabuse them of that notion.
- mchamption: Hasn't happened a lot, but there have been enough examples.
- yoav: ONe thing to improve is that some people think it's "come up with your proposal, and bored spec authors/implements will run over and
- do something with it", and that's not how it works. ^_^
- yoav: I agree that we need to make that clearer - you have to chamption your proposal, push it thru, help turn it into a spec.
- cwilso_: And to udnerscore, we do have a respectful interaction policy. If you see people being disrespectful, please contact the chairs.
- cwilso_: I've followed up on one or two issues, but it's a constant vigilance thing.
- cwilso_: And the audience constantly expands, there will alway sbe people who jump in rudely.
- cwilso_: Wrap-up!
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement