Re: BiDi working day in Berlin

On 01/08/2022 09:38, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> +1 to making this a proper WG meeting.

I'm not especially thrilled about an informal meetup with Selenium users 
becoming a formal WG meeting.

WG participants attending to a user meetup to informally collect 
feedback and opinions about the development of the spec and use cases 
and problems that we should solve for those people seemed like a clear 
good that didn't need to be a formal group meeting. It can be seen as 
similar to e.g. CSS WG members attending frontend focused conferences in 
order to talk to developers about their experiences, or publicise new 
spec features. On that basis I was generally happy about this event 
getting participation from working group members.

I'm also in favour of having F2F meeting directly on the spec. It's 
pretty clear that having a meeting in Europe is going to work better for 
more people than in any other location, including the already-arranged 
F2F at TPAC. In retrospect we probably should have had a discussion 
earlier in the year about different options, including a Europe meeting 
as an alternative to, or in addition to, TPAC. Of course, in the light 
of an ongoing pandemic, it's hard to make definite future plans, so 
maybe such a process would have been inconclusive. However it would be 
better than having multiple uncoordinated meetings within a few weeks of 
each other.

What worries me is that a user outreach event has turned into something 
resembling a formal group meeting. A WG F2F should come with more 
warning, so that all participants are aware it's happening, and anyone 
who needs time to book and approve travel is able to attend. Ideally 
there would be some scheduling flexibility, so that the group is able to 
find a date that works for as many WG members as possible. These days 
there should be some process for remote participation.

What shouldn't happen is WG members being forced to make the judgement 
call that an event is going to be treated as a de-facto WG meeting, so 
they feel compelled to scramble and provide representation.

I understand why people have been keen to seize an opportunity that 
presented itself, and it may be that we've reached the point where 
turning this into an official WG meeting is the least bad option. 
Certainly any sessions discussing the spec should be minuted so the 
content can be understood by those who are unable to attend. Per charter 
we already require all decisions to be made asynchronously, and given 
the context I'd assume we will pedantically stick to that requirement.

However, in the future, we must avoid this situation arising, and ensure 
that anything that will be a WG meeting will be understood to be so from 
the start, with equal opportunity for all WG members to participate.

Received on Monday, 1 August 2022 10:29:20 UTC