Re: BiDi working day in Berlin

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:29 PM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>