Open nairnandu opened 2 months ago
Based on the feedback from last year, going forward I think we'll have more success if we're more successful at developing a shared understanding of value proposition of different proposals, and where we have room for discussion. Of course that won't always work, but I'd like the process to focus on finding those points of agreement and ensuring that as far as possible we end up with a shared consensus.
With that in mind, here's a different take on what the process could be:
Some notes:
1741ff1b1c5c3c78b02a8a2da3284336b1e576aa removed all the language about which parts of the process are confidential and which are not. I think it's still important that this all be defined beforehand.
Microsoft's position is still that the Interop process should follow the model of web standards development by doing things in the open such that positions and discussions are public. But at the very least, organizations should be able to share which proposals they are championing and why, since revealing that information won't give full visibility into how the final votes and vetoes stack up.
I agree it's important that any confidential parts are explicitly marked. Per our charter we operate in public except where a process document like this one says otherwise.
Google's preference is to operate in public, including our all or positions on specific proposals. If there is some confidentiality in the process, we think it's important to at the very least clarify that it only applies to sharing the positions of other organizations who want them to be confidential. This wording from the original revision of this PR would do the job:
However, organizations can choose to publish their own priorities, for the Interop proposals, outside of the Interop program.
To be clear there's no intended change to the confidentiality compared to last year i.e. the details around proposal ranking and selection remain confidential to participants.
Of course there's not, and never has been, any restriction on commenting positively or negatively about specific web technologies in general.
I need to update the PR to make that clear.
However, the possibility of specifically allowing people to talk about the proposals they are championing is something I'd also considered, and would be worth discussing as a group.
Of course there's not, and never has been, any restriction on commenting positively or negatively about specific web technologies in general.
I need to update the PR to make that clear.
However, the possibility of specifically allowing people to talk about the proposals they are championing is something I'd also considered, and would be worth discussing as a group.
Last meeting I believe we were discussing these points but ran out of time. To help focus the discussion for next meeting I've pushed a suggestion for language that further clarifies the first point and opens up sharing of championed proposals. Let's dig into this more Thursday.
Thank you @dandclark! I've included this in the agenda for tomorrow, https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/674.
The wording you've suggested looks good to me, and is in line with Google's position/preference in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/pull/657#issuecomment-2194230551.
Based on the retrospective and feedback from proposal authors, this is a draft of the 2025 proposal review process to be reviewed by the team