search

WebStandardsFuture / browser-engine-diversity

Following up on TPAC 2020 Web Platform Engine Diversity breakout
1 stars 1 forks source link

Proper place for this discussion #3

Open jeffjaffe opened 3 years ago

jeffjaffe commented 3 years ago

Since this topic is already raising issues about the W3C Process, can we move the discussions over to the W3C Process Community Group (using a browser-engine-diversity label), and close this repository?

WebStdFuture commented 3 years ago

Strongly disagree. While https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/browser-engine-diversity/issues/2 is arguably a Process Document issue, it is not well defined enough to get any traction in the Process CG. I speak from experience :-) because I tried to raise the topic of the Users1st breakout in the Processs CG and got zero support even though it's clear that the broader community thinks this is worth discussing. It simply wasn't define well-enough for the Process CG, and was perhaps rightly seen as a distraction to that group's mission of discussing specific changes to the Process document under the guidance of the AB.

So I see the relationships here as: This repo is for broad community discussion of problems created by the move toward a small number of browser engines (with one getting much more investment than the others). With some shared discussion and analysis, we might formulate useful issues / proposals for the Process document. This group also might come up with suggestions that are clearly out of scope for the Process CG, such as the WHATWG Working Mode or Principles, or the TC 39 Process.

So, thanks for the reminder that the W3C Process CG is the appropriate for concrete proposals about how to improve the W3C Process to address the browser engine diversity challenge.... but also to explain why we found the useful to create this repo for meta-issues that transcend the various web standards groups and those that fall in the cracks between them.

jeffjaffe commented 3 years ago

I wish I knew who WebStdFuture was.

Among the benefits of having this discussion under W3C, is that the community loves our archiving services that we provide to GH@w3. If the Process Community CG is the wrong place for this discussion, we should find another place within the W3C GH so we do not lose the record of these valuable discussions.

michaelchampion commented 3 years ago

Oops, sorry that is me @michaelchampion. I setup WebStdsFuture early this year in hopes of reviving the great discussion at the Futures breakout at TPAC 2019 ... but the pandemic hit and I got distracted and didn't do anything with it I was logged into that repo to move its contents to this WebStandardsFuture organization which is collectively maintained and didn't notice when I commented.

I have considerable faith that GitHub will be around long enough to be a reliable record of these conversations for now.

cwilso commented 3 years ago

As soon as anything turns into actual suggested changes to the Process, yes, it should move over there. Right now even #2 is about incubations, which are outside the Process.