Re: Coordination

On 4/15/13 5:02 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 18:57 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> I'm really happy to see this thread.  The past attempts to establish
>> better communications and coordination between the W3C and Ecma/TC39
>> have had only limited success.  I think one cause has been a lack of
>> understanding of goals, plans, progress, and processes among the
>> general population of participants in the two groups.
>
> To be fair I think that part of the problem is due to the JS-related 
> work on the W3C side to be far more scattered across a host of groups 
> than TC39's work. If it were, say, just WebApps working on all APIs we 
> wouldn't need to have this conversation. As things stand, there is no 
> "DOM side". That's something we have to work to compensate for at our 
> end.
>
>> 1)  At every TPAC there should be an invited presentation by a
>> representative of TC39 updating the W3C community on TC39/ECMAScript
>> news, recent work, and future plans.
>>
>> 2)  The W3C should proactively invite and encourage TC39 participants
>> to attend and participate at TPACs as if they were active W3C
>> participants.
>>
>> 3)  At some regular interval (annually, bi-annually) there should be
>> a formal joint meeting between the TAG and core TC39 members. This
>> is arguably less important now that we have good cross-membership in
>> the two groups but I think it is still be important to try to
>> establish an official communcations path and shared vision at that
>> level.
>
> I heartily agree with the sentiment in these three proposals, but I'm 
> not sure that they're the best approach.
>
> To begin with, I can't formally speak on behalf of all the API-making 
> groups but I would be very surprised if they weren't enthusiastic at 
> the prospect of hosting a session dedicated to TC39 discussion. I 
> think that you can consider yourselves permanently invited.
>
> The parts I'm not sure about are about having a TPAC session and 
> coordinating with the TAG. There aren't really any properly plenary 
> sessions at TPAC anymore (at least there haven't been in the past two 
> years), so this may not be optimal. We could reserve a dedicated "Talk 
> with TC39" breakout session every year. I don't know if that's enough, 
> but it could be a start.
>
> In general though, I think that holding such a session would be more 
> efficient as part of the meeting of one of the larger API groups, 
> typically WebApps. Things that get communicated to WebApps and decided 
> there are likely to make their way to other groups relatively quickly. 
> And I believe that might be more efficient than talking to the TAG. 
> Even though things might change now that the TAG's make-up has 
> evolved, I would expect API-making groups to listen to WebApps more 
> readily than they'd listen to the TAG.
>
> So to reformulate your three proposals:
>
> 1) At every TPAC there should be a presentation by TC39 to the W3C 
> community, either in a dedicated breakout session or to WebApps.
>
> 2) W3C proactively invites participation from TC39 members in TPAC (we 
> can handle the details offline).
>
> 3) WebApps has a second meeting (not at TPAC) every year, and it would 
> be a good idea to catch up there as well.
>
> (Please note that everything above involving WebApps is provisional on 
> Art and Chaals not screaming at me afterwards. But they're usually 
> nice :)

The above all seem reasonable to me.

> Note that next week there's a four-day meeting in San Jose involving 
> HTML, WebApps, WebAppSec, and Web Crypto (at least). It's a bit short 
> notice, but maybe we can experiment that there?

I suspect it is too late to add new participants for WebApps' April 
25-26 meeting but I can check if there is interest (logistics 
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/April2013Meeting>).

Earlier today I added WebApps <->TC39 coordination as an agenda topic 
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/April2013Meeting#Potential_Topics>. We 
should be able to accommodate remote voice calls and we will use W3C's 
#webapps channel.

-ArtB


>
>> I  realize that this mailing list probably isn't the best one for
>> submitting these suggestions, but this is where we having the
>> conversation and I think the push for coordination improvements needs
>> to start at the grass roots level.
>
> This is where we're having the conversation, so this is actually the 
> best place to have these suggestions. I kicked off the thread for a 
> reason :)
>

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 13:01:37 UTC