2024-09-12 Standardization Meeting

[CanadaHonk]

• At least initial pass through Chartering checklist #73, especially scope and venue sections
• Create clear action items from the meeting
  • Venue: Someone (@CanadaHonk?) start a PR explaining reasoning for venue to display (admin or site?)
  • Documentation: Action items of points to improve of the site

[CanadaHonk]

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)