On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:03 AM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com> wrote: > Something's really wrong here. Chromium is supposed to be open source and > lots of forks exist. But this group sounds like an internal Google thing. > If Google wants it, it MUST happen. And only 2 forks matter, Chrome and > Edge. I work on an incubating fork and expect that there will be some of > the features that are not allowed as they are considered not safe. That > process is likely to accelerate. > This is about W3C community groups, not a Google nor Chromium. Marcos, formerly of Firefox and now at Apple, is leading the discussion. Others involved, like me, don't work for any browser company. There are two discussions happening here: 1. Can we clear the cruft from the wicg site so that people can more easily distinguish between community groups that are active and those that have gone inactive? 2. How should we label specifications developed by the community groups so people can more easily understand their status? For example, which browser engines have implemented the a given spec and what cycle in the standard-setting process is the community group is in. If you want to nominate additional forks of Chromium to be listed in the labels, name the fork and make your case. For example, the recent discussion of Brave made me wonder if Arc should be listed separately as well. I do wonder if there is a percentage of market share that a browser engine fork has to achieve before it is something that the groups track. But I suppose that is up for debate or could even be configurable by the community group itself instead of being preset options. If you want to rant about Google, Chromium, or any other specific browser company, this probably isn’t the place for it.
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2023 18:03:37 UTC