Re: Apparent WebDriver meeting?

As requested in a previous email, could we get the meeting notes from this
shared ASAP so that we can be seen to be inclusive.

David

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM David Burns <
david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk> wrote:

> I will go ahead and set up a meeting so that it can be inclusive of anyone
> who is interested in the project.
>
> The work should definitely be done within the WG since it's already in the
> WG github repo and issues except, unintentionally?, meetings did not
> include the group.
> I am going to assume no malice but having a meeting with "interested
> parties" but ignoring the people who have historically been driving this
> from the meeting does come across poorly. We need to make sure that this
> does not happen again in the future.
>
> Could we also get the minutes shared with this group as well, I haven't
> seen those shared yet.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Mathias Bynens <mths@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that great summary, Philip.There's definitely no intention of
>> keeping this meeting "hidden" or secret. Anyone who's interested in talking
>> about BiDi is welcome to join.
>>
>> As for logistics, I suggest we simply invite
>> public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org to any future meetings, and start
>> taking public minutes. WDYT?
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:30 PM Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> A bunch of people indeed meet yesterday to discuss the explainer
>>> <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/blob/master/webdriver-bidi/webdriver.md> and
>>> some of the BiDi issues <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/labels/BiDi>
>>> filed by James. This grew organically out of a first Google/Microsoft
>>> meeting to gauge the level of interest about a month ago. Since it's such
>>> early days for this workstream, I don't think any of us have considered
>>> whether to use existing WG meetings, public minutes, etc., we just met to
>>> see what would come of it.
>>>
>>> Trying to summarize some of the discussion:
>>>
>>>    - Specify how to enable an event stream
>>>    <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1501> - The basic problem
>>>    is the full stream of events might be too much, so you'd need some way to
>>>    enable a subset of all possible events. The next problem is that there are
>>>    some events from targets you don't know if/when they'll appear, like
>>>    iframes and service workers, that you want to subscribe to if they appear.
>>>    We thought that some per-session mechanism to enable events per domain and
>>>    possibly per target type might work.
>>>    - Update goals in the explainer document
>>>    <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1499> - I think we ended up
>>>    concurring with what James wrote on devtools protocols. While being able to
>>>    use BiDi together with devtools protocols would probably help a transition,
>>>    it's no requirement that BiDi is layered on top of a devtools protocol, and
>>>    for example how to get from identifiers in one protocol to the other, when
>>>    both are supported, would perhaps be as extra properties or "convert this
>>>    to that" commands in one of the protocols.
>>>    - Specify a low-level transport format
>>>    <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1498> - It sounds like
>>>    JSON-RPC isn't exactly what we need, but there isn't anything else that is.
>>>    Basing something on JSON-RPC but writing a stringent test suite for it
>>>    sounded reasonable. It's not clear if transmitting binary as base64 will be
>>>    enough of a problem to avoid JSON-RPC, I got the sense that most
>>>    implementers don't think so.
>>>
>>> @Mathias Bynens <mths@google.com> or others on this list might be able
>>> to add more detail, and in any case it'd be a good idea to get this into
>>> the issues rather than notes.
>>>
>>> I've not seen any suggestion to spin up a CG for this, but enough people
>>> found it useful enough to repeat it on a monthly basis. I think it would
>>> make sense to have the BiDi meeting be open to any WG members and to take
>>> minutes in public. What are the logistics for doing that?
>>>
>>> Philip
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:56 AM David Burns <
>>> david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I am just sharing this as there appears to be hidden meetings about the
>>>> WebDriver BiDi work that does not include anyone from the Selenium group,
>>>> the editors of the webdriver specification and probably others (who knows
>>>> as it was a closed meeting).
>>>>
>>>> Has there been some agreement to move this out to a community group
>>>> instead of using the working group?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>