Re: Apparent WebDriver meeting?

Please pardon the delay, Mathias asked everyone quoted in the minutes to
check them for public sharing by end-of-week. That is now, so here they are:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qZcT2RBdmxbzVorV1hTUaH_sIvrhGYjZbP4rK0IpBEc/edit

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 19:39 David Burns <
david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>