2024-09-12 Standardization Meeting

action items (@ = assignee):

@lucacasonato: write doc asking for ecma commitment for easy invited expert process
@andreubotella: propose w3c tpac breakout session for wintercg
@CanadaHonk: make PR for doc in admin repo detailing standardization, to be reviewed/merged in next general meeting next week
@lucacasonato: update faq section of site
@CanadaHonk: update work section of site
@CanadaHonk, @lucacasonato, @littledan: make google doc for scope, to be discussed in the matrix
?: check who will need to become an invited expert or member of ecma, if any participants will become unable to participate.

why ecma:

@CanadaHonk: personal experience of ease of access and operation
@lucacasonato: many members of wintercg are already part of ecma
@lucacasonato: closer ties to ecma, knowing people at ecma more than at w3c to help get setup
@lucacasonato: avoiding complexities of cg/wg split which would happen with w3c
@andreubotella: may be easier to work with other orgs if in w3c but might not be a big blocker
@lucacasonato: conclude that we decided not to do split as it is too long winded

site notes:

@littledan: main homepage is good
@littledan: add matrix label
@littledan: rename all Common Minimum -> Minimum Common
@littledan: add details el for more details
@lucacasonato: include primary body working with for each proposal
@littledan: avoid "adoption" as has ipr implications
@littledan: move whatwg fetch "fork" to a personal account as just a big pr
@littledan: delete reference to performance
@littledan: move web crypto streams to wicg/away from wintercg
socket api:
- @littledan: what if the web do raw sockets
- @lucacasonato: cf workers ship behind flag and has an npm package implementing
- @lucacasonato: why should the web potentially doing something in the future prevent us from making/thinking about something?
- @lucacasonato: browsers do not seem interested in this even for extensions
- @lucacasonato: seems unlikely since webtransport now exists and seems to fit browser's want for it
- @littledan: framing needs to be more careful. maybe charter can be ambigious to whether this would be included and figure it out later. engage with people who have feelings on it?
- @lucacasonato: rephrase to focus on server side runtimes but also mention browsers could work on it so chrome could work on their own api if wanted instead
@littledan: cli api seems fine and a good example of something which would never be done in browsers
faq:
- @lucacasonato: note on us trying not to be a specification body needs to change. I can give this a pass
- @littledan: seems mostly good
- @lucacasonato: except some of the section on what trying not to do
- @littledan: add faq that wintercg compliance does not (yet) exist
@littledan: add scope to introduction of work section (rather than faq)

wintercg / admin

2024-09-12 Standardization Meeting #74