Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wide review tracker #177

Open
29 tasks done
anssiko opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 16 comments
Open
29 tasks done

Wide review tracker #177

anssiko opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 16 comments

Comments

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Jan 30, 2023

About

This is a meta issue to track wide review for the Compute Pressure API.

An important part of wide review is horizontal review from W3C's key horizontal groups listed below in horizontal groups section. Also feedback from other stakeholders is equally important. Additional pointers are welcome via comments.

The list is based on the How to do wide review page guidance.

Legend:
🔴 Review request not submitted
🟡 Review request submitted
🔵 Review feedback received
🟢 Review closed as completed

Horizontal groups

🟢 ♿ Accessibility

🟢 📐 Architecture

🟢 🌍 Internationalisation

🟢 🔍 Privacy

🟢 🔒 Security

Other stakeholders

From who to ask for review:

Horizontal reviews [...] are only a subset of a full wide review, which must also include other stakeholders including Web developers, technology providers and implementers not active in the Working Group, external groups and standards organizations working on related areas, etc.

🟢 Zoom - positive signals and support #14

@anssiko anssiko pinned this issue Jan 30, 2023
This was referenced Feb 3, 2023
@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Feb 7, 2023

I have now initiated the Privacy and Security reviews with the respective horizontal groups.

In addition, I have staged both the Accessibility and Internationalisation reviews for submission, pending editors' review of the checklist materials to be provided as references in these requests.

Lastly, we had submitted the Architecture (aka TAG) review request earlier.

The status of our overall wide review progress is being tracked in this issue with links to the relevant material and feedback. Our goals is to turn all 🔴 into 🟡 during Q1, and push to 🟢 during Q2.

Your diligent efforts ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of the web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and are able to actually perform reviews of and provide comments on the specification.

Our second objective is to make sure we request reviews early enough that comments and suggested changes can still be reasonably incorporated in response to the review.

Thank you for your contributions.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Mar 29, 2023

Current status:

  • All wide review requests have been submitted.

  • Internationalisation review has been completed.

  • Privacy review feedback has been received and is being addressed.

Please refer to the tracker in the first comment for pointers.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Apr 24, 2023

Current status:

  • Accessibility review request queued for processing.

  • Architecture review received. Positive feedback with a request to share developer feedback when available. Confirming if further feedback is expected.

  • Privacy review feedback broken into privacy-needs-resolution issues welcomes contributions.

  • Security review closed as completed.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jun 5, 2023

Current status:

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Dec 13, 2023

I'm thrilled to announce wide review for the Compute Pressure API has been completed. 🥳

The Devices and Sensors Working Group would like to thank numerous contributors across Accessibility, Architecture, Internationalization, Privacy and Security horizontals for their deligent review and contributions.

@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented Dec 19, 2023

@anssiko Next step toward CR after HR, would be settling down all spec issues (or marking related part as at-risk?), and call for consensus to publish as CR within the group, I believe.
It seems there is only small number of registered issues (except for V2 or enhancement), we may go further shortly. How do you think? (of course, all works might start after new year.)

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Dec 19, 2023

@himorin, thanks for reminding us of the next Rec Track transition ahead of us.

I'd like to share with the WG that a number of high-profile customers want to continue experiment with the API. To that end, we announced an intent to extend the Chrome Origin Trial from 120 to 123 inclusive, running until early April '24. The goal of this extension is to gather feedback to further increase the WG's confidence we are addressing real user needs across a variety of use cases.

I believe the WG wants to integrate the feedback from these early adopters before advancing to a CR, so I'd suggest we check back when we have completed the Origin Trial extension. It is definitely great to see the wide review (one of the important requirements for advancing to a CR) completed with major contributions to the specification.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Mar 7, 2024

Feedback from early adopters of the Compute Pressure API is now available: w3ctag/design-reviews#795 (comment)

This feedback suggests the current version of the API is addressing real customer needs. The feedback also motivates possible future work.

@kenchris @arskama please ensure that we have recorded the relevant feedback for possible future work as GH issues in this repo, labeled as V2

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented May 15, 2024

The Compute Pressure API shipped in Chrome 125 Stable release yesterday. Congratulations everyone who made this happen!

This important implementation milestone was reached after an extensive trial period with real-world customers between July 2023 and March 2024. Feedback received during this trial period demonstrated the API addresses important end user needs and motivated the shipping decision.

Considering this significant advancement on the implementation front, I recommend the WG to start advancing this specification toward the Candidate Recommendation stage in the near future. This transition is to formally signal the specification is welcoming further implementation experience.

We will assess the CR transition readiness in the coming months with assistance from @himorin and will follow up with more information and concrete next steps. Meanwhile, I encourage the editors @kenchris @arskama to triage the remaining open issues and label any issues considered out of scope for the expected CR, including any new features, as V2 This is to help delineate what should be addressed by CR from what comes after.

@pes10k
Copy link

pes10k commented May 15, 2024

Thats wonderful @anssiko . I'm repeating myself I know, but i just wanted to appreciate your group for working so hard and collaboratively to address the privacy risks that PING identified, and integrating mitigations into the default behavior in the spec so that Web users and sites can benefit from this new, exciting functionality without putting users at risk. Congratulations to you all again

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented May 15, 2024

Working on this specification together with you @pes10k and the PING participants has been a rewarding experience for the entire group. Your major contributions shaped what became an extensive security and privacy considerations section documenting both identified threats and innovative mitigation strategies, also incorporated into normative definitions.

Our group is guided by our mission statement ("create secure and privacy-preserving client-side APIs") so your kind words mean a lot to us. Your feedback tells us we're doing the right things and doing them right.

I'm proud to see this API ship with the strong privacy protections we co-designed. Thank you for co-traveling with us on this journey.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Sep 12, 2024

@kenchris @arskama in preparation for our TPAC discussion w3c/devicesensors-wg#69, can you please triage the remaining open issues and:

  • label any open issues considered out of scope for the expected CR, including any new features, as V2
  • and then, identify issues out of the remaining issues that are not V2 that are substantive bug fixes to be addressed prior CR, and label them as bug Something is wrong or under specified

You can also use other labels as appropriate, but check the assignment for those two (V2, bug) are up to date.

This will help the group make an informed decision on the publication readiness. Thank you!

@arskama
Copy link
Contributor

arskama commented Sep 18, 2024

V2 labels:

  1. v2 labels under investigation, higher prirority, or requires discussions:
  2. v2 labels out of current scope:

bug Something is wrong or under specified labels:

  1. Permission policy needs to be checked when owner set changes #243: No easy fix before CR.
  2. "Current pressure state" definition and cardinality are confusing #281: Could be fixed before CR.
  3. "Rate-limiting change notifications" section is confusing #291: Could be fixed before CR.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Sep 18, 2024

Thanks @arskama. If there are bugs that you think should be out of scope for CR, you could use a combination of bug Something is wrong or under specified + V2 for those.

@anssiko anssiko reopened this Sep 18, 2024
@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented Sep 18, 2024

also I believe 'no', but is there any (additional) at-risk feature we should mark?

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Sep 18, 2024

@himorin I believe thermals pressure source could be marked as at risk.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants