Re: Face to face this year

There are two goals: a venue to accomplish WPWG business as well as an
opportunity to raise awareness of WPWG.

I'm amazed when I speak at conferences how many people aren't aware of Nav
Timing. Even fewer have heard anything about Page Visibility. And even
fewer than that are aware the W3C has a Web Performance Working Group.

Many of the charters we're working on don't provide any benefit unless web
developers adopt them. Thus it seems logical to evangelize these
performance deliverables at the largest gathering of performance engineers.

Perhaps it could be a combination of business agenda as well as review of
current activities - to raise awareness.

-Steve


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Jason Weber <jweber@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I agree with the sentiment that we may not need to meet in person this
> year. Our first three F2F working group meetings established the focus
> areas for the working group, and we’re making good progress against those
> deliverables and respective implementations. I’m not aware of any open
> issues that would benefit from a larger F2F, and I recommend we be cautious
> about expanding the charter until we’ve finished our current set of
> deliverables. I suggest we next get together once the timing related
> features are interoperably implemented across browsers. Thoughts?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Arvind Jain [mailto:arvind@google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:34 PM
> *To:* public-web-perf
> *Subject:* Face to face this year****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> We took a vote in our WG meeting on whether we'd like to meet face to face
> at TPAC this year, and there wasn't much enthusiasm. Steve Souders offered
> an alternative - would the WG like to meet face to face at the Velocity
> Conference venue this year (June 25-27 Santa Clara CA) - we may get a room
> for us, and it'd be a chance for WG members to attend Velocity along with
> our face to face. As usual, we can telecon/VC folks who can't attend.****
>
> ** **
>
> Please let me know what you think of it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Arvind****
>