Charter Review

Marcos: Does anyone want to collaborate on this one? I think it's ready for review.

Jeffrey: If no one else is interested, I can look along with you.

Marcos: I think it's straightforward, but they've changed the text around the CR criteria and I haven't figured out if that has architectural concerns or not.

Jeffrey: Sounds like we need to wait until we've reviewed next week.

Jeffrey: Marcos posted some comments. We should review and see what we agree on. The expressions of interest is from the charter template. We should probably keep iterating on the template, but let this charter proceed with this in the charter.

Marcos: WebKit people are very concerned; I've raised those concerns indepently of the TAG. The other things are fairly small. The frustration they are having is they haven't worked out a process on how they handle their own changes. Their consequence of their proposed changes here is that they want to put stuff into a spec to incubate it rather than tightening up the working group process to make sure things are being properly implemented.

Jeffrey: I've also been talking to Yoav about the process questions, which are not TAG questions. Am worried about the single engine bit, but we can probably come up with something. Should I draft a comment to discuss?

Marcos: Yes, that would be great.

Jeffrey: the chairs wouuld like to add lines to the spec and mark them as experimental to the spec before they have multiple implementations. Can say some of the TAG has concerns, but we want to indicate leaning one way or the other.

Marcos: Clarifying, They basically want to include incubations in the specification. That may be ok if they have multiple implementers backing the thing. Problem they were having was that they weren't getting enough participation from various implementers, but want to land things in the spec. I think that's risky because implementer might come back and wonder what it's doing there. They need to fix the WG process for getting conensus, rather than landing without consensus. But it's for them to decide what's best, and if fits all members, they should add things.

Heather: I don't have a problem with an experimental tag. Making it clear in a draft spec that this part is more drafty, by clearly labeling it, is perfectly reasonable. But I'd want the WG to agree that an experimental tag is something they're willing to have. If 1 editor wants it, but the others don't, the no. But if the WG says 'yes', I have no problem.

Jeffrey:

Marcos: The process document has an explicit mechanism to mark things "at risk" at CR. But the framing sounds different. Covered by the same thing, but maybe they want to make it more explicit. My reading was that they wanted to put the incubations into the spec rather than having them "at risk". Could be both?