Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
117 lines (68 loc) · 4.84 KB

2020-12-notes.md

File metadata and controls

117 lines (68 loc) · 4.84 KB

MDN Product Advisory Board video meeting, December 2020

Attendees: Reeza Ali (Microsoft), Dan Appelquist (Samsung), Hermina Condei (Mozilla). Daniel Ehrenberg (Igalia), Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C), Brian Kardell (Igalia), Joe Medley (Google), Chris Mills (Mozilla, Chair), Sheila Moussavi (Bocoup), Robert Nyman (Google), Kyle Pflug (Microsoft), Ali Spivak (independant), Jory Burson (guest, OWD).

Logistics

  • Date/Time: December 9 2020, 09.00 Pacific / 17.00 UK time / 18:00 Europe
  • Location: Mozilla Zoom room

Agenda

  • Welcome Igalia!
  • Process for accepting new candidates
  • Yari update?
  • PAB moving forward - purpose, members, cadence.
  • Farewell to Jory <3

Meeting notes

Process for accepting new candidates?

Set number of folks. Look into person’s background.

Ali — three years ago, we built a system to allow open invitations to provide opportunities to folks, openness. Does this still stand?

Chris — yes, but we also need to limit it somehow too.

Robert — Sheila made a good point. Setting up guidelines and open invitations based on an individual’s circumstances could lead to bias for future candidates.

Robert — another factor is related to existing companies saying ‘no’ based on political decisions?

Hermina — should we take a step back? Original purpose of PAB was product advice, but also lots of editorial decisions? But now, more just product advice. Also cadence? Monthly too many for product advice?

Joe — complexity, what about if someone applies that has an employment agreement specifying how they are allowed to represent themselves. Public perception issue?

Dom — reacting to Hermina’s comments. We did some editorial stuff, but it was still largely higher level product stuff. Now more so?

Also we just moved to monthly.

Joe — any similar situations on the W3C? Re: membership? Dom — yes, W3C TAG reps have to be nominated. Closest analogy.

Who to give advice? Up to Mozilla to answer if what we committee is gives suitable advice?

Limit PAB going forward by max number of committee members.

Joe — also provide way for people to give input beyond just the PAB meeting, etc.

Brian — hearing a few things, make sure he is clear. Chris said we should have a number, what should the number be? Currently 10-12. Size makes sense. Also are they members or organizations? Chris — organizations. ALso, is there an opportunity to make it clear what they can get out of this?

Make sure it is clear what do you continue in PAB Make sure you can funnel to other places where they would be more useful.

Specify this stuff clearly.

ACTION: Chris to explore these

Yari update

GitHub PRs L10n tricky, in research mode Trying to follow up with Moz l10n team

ACTION: Share Yari post with PAB folks.

Dom - main comment on GH migration. Big plus will be potential tighter integration between content and specs. Any plans there yet? On BCD, yes, on MDN, no in general.

ACTION: brainstorm this with DOM.

Reeza — moving to markdown now? Chris — HTML for now, but we are researching moving off HTML, possibly to markdown, possibly to something else. Hermina — scheduled for Q1/2 2021 Reeza — how to convert existing docs to markdown? Hermina — yes, need to figure this out.

Joe — has a concern over possible contributions from Google, but could apply to other organizations. Making sure they are suitable for MDN The review teams shouldn’t have to deal with such decisions. Sometimes the decision relies on a feature's development status within Chrome and reviewers shouldn't need to understand Chrome's inner workings to judge the suitability of a contribution.

Chris — need to write up a process for this — any kind of mass adding of a feature (lots of new interface pages, for example) is too high level for standard review process, and should be put past the editorial committee/mdn staff first.

Also see https://github.com/w3c/browser-specs#spec-selection-criteria

Also should a feature have BCD data first before it is allowed to go on mdn?

BCD first does have some merit. Think about this

ACTION: Chris/Florian to create process.

Also introduce BCD tooling

PAB moving forward - purpose, members, cadence

  • Keep monthly cadence for now
  • Work out new process for new members

Action items

  • ACTION: Chris to create proposal for new membership process and make it clear what they can get out of the membership. (issue #80)
  • ACTION: Chris to share Yari post with PAB folks. DONE
  • ACTION: Chris to set up meeting to brainstorm how we can better integrate MDN with other functions such as spec process, via GitHub, to our advantage (issue #81)
  • ACTION: Chris/Florian to set up shared process for working together on MDN content (This is being done in a separate process, more to share soon)

Next meeting

Video call — January 27