Hadley: Is this also CSS?

Matthew: Yes. Happy to have a look at it.

Lola: Looks like the explainer is for two-phase transition, looks like they only ask us to take a look at one of the proposed solutions. The link directly goes to the section they would like us to review.

Hadley: Doesn’t sound like an explainer?

Lola: Think we shouldn’t review this, this very much a WIP.

Hadley: I'm adding the "explainer missing" tag.

Christian: I can do it.

Lola: Based on what I see, they’re asking us about our feedback regarding different solutions, until they find one. Explainer itself contains an overview and context. Don’t know if it is enough. There is some security and privacy, but no a11y considerations. Don’t know if it would need it.

Hadley: If we’re not sure what they want, we should try and clarify that.

Matthew: There isn’t much of an explaination of why the explainer is what it is. There’s also no alternatives considered section, and the markdown is badly formatted. Assigned myself before we discussed it. Thanks Christian for joining. We should request clarification. There are also some minutes from TPAC.

Lola: I think we should finish the explainer and then come back to us. Sounds

Christian: If it’s okay for you, I would have a look and either ask for clarification or send them back?

Hadley: Don’t burn too much energy until their needs and intentions are clearer.