Agenda for Sept. 28, 2023

[nairnandu]

Here is the proposed agenda for the meeting on Sept 28th

• Follow-up on next steps from last meeting, for PR Add a proposal for the Interop 2024 process #390
  • Re-visit the limit 'N' for round 2
  • Timing for the grouping of proposals
  • Recommendation on the wording for member-confidential Create the Interop Team Charter #102 (comment)
  • Fixing the wording around positions
• Interop 2023 carryover discussion

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @zcorpan, @foolip, @nairnandu, @chrishtr, @boazsender, @Rnyman, @dandclark, @bkardell, @jgraham, @meyerweb, @gsnedders

Notes

• Follow-up on next steps from last meeting, for PR Add a proposal for the Interop 2024 process #390
  • Re-visit the limit 'N' for round 2
    • jensimmons: the last time we said 50, it was not clear if we included carryover areas? We wont have 100% overlap so we might end up with 80 or so. Can we push that down to 30 or so?
    • jgraham: 30 proposals would be fine if they are all a focus area in its own right. By next week, we will know more?
    • foolip: before we know how many proposals we have, its hard to think about a number.
    • jgraham: we have seen it before where a proposal ends up being a small part of a focus area
    • jensimmons: if we imagine picking 30 each. Superset would be around 45-60 or so.
    • jgraham: if we can say move forward ‘n’ focus areas instead of proposals
    • dandclark: hard to pinpoint N at this point. Would want to err on the side of being N being big. More like a 40 than 30.
    • jensimmons: agree to keep it at 40
    • Consensus: keep N at 40
  • Timing for the grouping of proposals
    • foolip: end of round 3 would be a natural place to do it
    • jensimmons: that feels right. Prioritization should happen on individual proposals. We can group proposals at the end.
    • jgraham: on the flip side, there would be cases where prioritization makes sense after grouping - especially for smaller proposals. Special casing those instances makes sense to me.
    • foolip: we can send signals internally on potential groupings to help with prioritization.
    • jensimmons: we also need to determine the no: of focus areas we can support. We need to define the process for grouping prior to determining the no: of focus areas.
  • Recommendation on the wording for member-confidential Create the Interop Team Charter #102 (comment)
    • Suggested change - https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/pull/102#discussion\_r1339538973
    • jgraham: the process document should also reflect this. The process for a new member joining the team - would that also be public?
    • foolip: could you update the process doc to reflect this change? What stages of the selection process should be confidential vs public
    • gsnedders: the discussion as I remember was to keep the decision making process in round 2 and 3 private
    • bkardell: publishing internal decision making could be easily misconstrued or misunderstood
    • jensimmons: all of the decisions based on the basic selection criteria (spec, tests etc.) can be public.
    • dandclark: is there a compromise here to publish anonymized votes that gives authors some visibility on their progress
    • bkardell: voting does carry a connotation, but I dont have a problem with that
    • jensimmons: not very convinced with the value added in sharing that information
    • jgraham: +1 to Jen. I think there's objective information that will be easy to share "negative standards position" or "can't test this", but I don't think that the other stuff is very helpful.
    • dandclark: To clarify, I don't think we'd want to release the results after every round -- it would be published as part of the overall announcement in January. These would be the vote totals that we'd already done the work to tally up anyway, in order to decide which proposals advanced in each state.
    • AI: gsnedders will update PR Add a proposal for the Interop 2024 process #390 to reflect the wording around member confidentiality. Others will add comments for review ahead of the next meeting.
  • Fixing the wording around positions
    • AI: gsnedders will update PR Add a proposal for the Interop 2024 process #390 to reflect the wording around positions
• Interop 2023 carryover discussion
  • Team took a first pass on areas that are closer to 100% Interop. Continue the process in the next meeting.