Agenda for Sept 5th, 2023

[nairnandu]

Proposed agenda for Sept 5th, 2023:

• Review and decide on the criteria for carryover of Interop 2023 focus areas

[nairnandu]

• Review and decide on the criteria for carryover of Interop 2023 focus areas
  • Options
  • jgraham: this is a prioritization process and anything that is carried over needs to be weighed against new proposals. There is no obvious threshold we can look at to decide if a focus area can be carried over. It is subjective
  • bkardell: seems reasonable. In the meantime, driving towards interoperability is the key driver
  • jensimmons: any one of the 3 options would work. As an ongoing effort, it is core. Are we of mixed opinion here - can we get a pulse check?
  • jgraham: on reaching a 100% - we are talking about a selected amount of tests. So we should not over-pivot on 100% as a measure for carryover. We should weigh the progress holistically
  • meyerweb: lean slightly towards option 2 or 3. Concerned that over time automatic carryover will leave us with a huge backlog of areas with less than 100%.
  • bkardell: agree with Eric
  • rnyman: for the wider developer ecosystem, there is a risk of losing developer faith if we dont go all the way to 100% for the proposals that get selected
  • jensimmons: agreed. There is a difference in philosophy here. Grid as an example is at 71% interop. The question is do we keep going and is it a big enough pain point for developers?
  • jgraham: Grid at 71% interop - should be a shoo-in. However, a subset of tests that adds value need to be discussed and figured out. Something that has been in Interop before should definitely carry some weight.
  • foolip: any option should work. If we were to have a preference, it would be for Option 1. Important to evaluate remaining work and developer need.
  • jensimmons: if we want to go through each area with a bias for existing/previous focus areas, that would be option 1
  • foolip: is the carryover process happening before proposal selection?
  • jensimmons: that’s the idea
  • jgraham: for the timing aspect - pushing the carryover decision as late as possible in the year would make sense
  • jensimmons: Option 1 would be October, Option 2 or 3 would be November
  • foolip: we should separate out how we did in Interop 2023 vs evaluating new proposals
  • foolip: lets evaluate each area 1-by-1 and decide to carry forward (by consensus). This should happen before proposal selection. Add some flexibility towards the end
  • jgraham: if we do those things in isolation, then we do not have a point of comparison vis-a-vis new proposals (what are we prioritizing a carryover focus area against)
  • jensimmons: the philosophical difference here is - are we starting from scratch every year or are we looking at what’s most important every year?
  • jgraham: we can create issues on github for each 2023 focus area and figure out which ones carry forward.
  • gsnedders: we do not want to end up with a process that is quite complicated and time consuming
  • Next step: jgraham will write-up a proposal for the carryover process as a comment on the existing PR, for the team to review ahead of the next meeting
  • Votes on options (option no: 1, 2 or 3 prioritized)
    • Apple: 1, 2 3
    • Bocoup: [did not attend]
    • Google: 1 2 3
    • Igalia: 2 1 3
    • Microsoft: [did not attend]
    • Mozilla: 3