Recharter proposal: 2018-2020

[igrigorik]

This PR covers proposed updates to the 2018-2020 charter, as discussed in:

• proposal doc
• last week's WG call

Preview: https://rawgit.com/w3c/charter-webperf/18-20-charter/index.html

/cc @rniwa @past @toddreifsteck @slightlyoff

[plehegar]

We should add WHATWG in the external organization section. Side note: once this get merged, I'll need to do a pass at the document to update the deliverables section with various reference drafts (to satisfy latest Patent Policy understanding).

[igrigorik]

@plehegar good catch on whatwg! Added.

[plehegar]

One additional consideration: can we add a sentence or two related to the testing policy in section 1.2? eg. "ALL normative spec changes are generally expected to have a corresponding set of tests, either in the form of new tests or modifications to existing tests, or must include the rationale for why test updates are not required for the proposed update." (I left the WPT specific part out even if that's the current expectation).

[igrigorik]

"ALL normative spec changes are generally expected to have a corresponding set of tests, either in the form of new tests or modifications to existing tests, or must include the rationale for why test updates are not required for the proposed update."

👍

Updated WICG adoption criteria and added above to success criteria.

[rniwa]

The proposed charter looks good to us (Apple) although we're still interested in the memory pressure API.

[igrigorik]

@rniwa great to hear, thanks for the feedback!

Re, memory pressure: last time we did this exercise we added Memory Pressure into the normative deliverables section because we expected that we'd quickly converge on the spec and get 1+ shipping implementations out in quick order. For one reason or another that didn't happen.

On a tactical note, I removed memory pressure from deliverables to be consistent with our incubation policy. That doesn't mean we're abandoning that work. To the contrary, personally I'd love to see another push behind that effort. If we can drum up implementer interest, we can formally (re)adopt the spec into our charter — it's within the scope of our charter.

As such, I don't think we need any changes to what we're proposing here, but just want to clarify and make sure we're all on the same page.

[past]

This looks good for Mozilla as well, especially the NT/RT consolidation change Marcos noted above.

[plehegar]

@toddreifsteck , ok to merge?

[toddreifsteck]

@plehegar LGTM! @igrigorik Thanks for the work on driving this! Well done.