Agenda for May 11, 2023

[nairnandu]

Here is the proposed agenda for the Interop team meeting on May 11

• Test change proposals that need review/feedback
  • Remove /css/css-flexbox/flexbox-align-self-baseline-horiz-008.xhtml from Interop 2023 #320
• Investigation area documentation norms #325
• Finish the Interop Team Charter #275

[jgraham]

I think we should start to think about the 2024 Process now. It's clear we want some changes from what happened in 2023, and it might make sense to start understanding where we'd like things to go before we hit summer vacations in June/July/August, and then find ourselves in the proposal period.

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @zcorpan, @foolip, @jgraham, @nairnandu, @Rnyman, @meyerweb, @boazsender, @dandclark, @nt1m, @lolaodelola, @gsnedders

Notes

• Test change proposals that need review/feedback

  • Remove /css/css-flexbox/flexbox-align-self-baseline-horiz-008.xhtml from Interop 2023 #320
    • AI: jgraham will ask emilio to double-check

• boazsender: Investigation area documentation norms #325

  • consensus: potentially adding it to tablecontents. PR to drive that discussion.

• Finish the Interop Team Charter #275

  • boazsender: lgtm
  • dandclark: Would a resolution to Retrospective: transparency in proposal selection and feedback #290 be part of this charter?
  • foolip: that would be baked into the 2024 process
  • dandclark: looks good
  • jgraham: Charter is about the decision making process. Do we have explicit sign-off from everyone?
  • foolip: who would be the assigned person from each org?
    • Mozilla: jgraham
    • Bocoup: boazsender
    • Apple: karlcow has signed off
    • Microsoft: dandclark will review and signoff
    • Igalia: meyerweb can take ownership
  • gsnedders: what does “paused” mean, in the charter?
  • jgraham: there is no binding agreement to do something. If we don't have consensus, we don't do anything
  • boazsender: could we designate a member of the group to be a facilitator to bring alignment, if there is no consensus?
  • foolip: don’t think we are bound to the idea of publishing a metric in perpetuity
  • gsnedders: charter should define what is in scope for the interop team.
  • boazsender: Might be more explicit to call out the “term” as being annual and that we agree every year to do it.
  • jgraham: not a given that this will be an annual cycle
  • boazsender: even if we switch to a continuous model, we should checkin with each other every year (or doing retros as an example)
  • jgraham: The charter, currently, requires consensus and that is our decision making process that warrants a yearly cycle
  • gsnedders: +1 on being more explicit
  • foolip: could we summarize that publishing a metric requires consensus?
  • boazsender: outside of consensus (or the lack thereof), there could be other reasons which would stall the process.
  • AI: gsnedders will review the updated charter and propose any changes needed ahead of the next meeting.

• Interop 2024 process

  • jgraham: adding an agenda item for the future. What changes are needed
  • nt1m: should look at capping the focus areas next time
  • foolip: one piece of feedback was around evaluating all proposals. Thinking on the lines of evaluating early
  • gsnedders: working on an early proposal draft for 2024 to reduce the operational overhead
  • jgraham: should set a specific meeting to review the operational aspects
  • gsnedders: what signals would we look for? Would the proposer need to do that work of finding supporting data?
  • jgraham: developer interest (state of css, html), evidence of the feature being used. Have to rely on public data so that it is easier to evaluate