-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
2025 proposal selection process #657
Conversation
Based on the feedback from last year, going forward I think we'll have more success if we're more successful at developing a shared understanding of value proposition of different proposals, and where we have room for discussion. Of course that won't always work, but I'd like the process to focus on finding those points of agreement and ensuring that as far as possible we end up with a shared consensus. With that in mind, here's a different take on what the process could be:
Some notes:
|
Replace with a version of the proposal in #657 (comment) aimed at iteratively building consensus.
adjust their proposals in response to this feedback. | ||
|
||
Following each meeting participants may adjust their rankings for the | ||
remaining proposals up or down in response to discussions, any agreed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed in today's meeting, there's some ambiguity here about whether adjusting up and down is the only way proposals end up being accepted or rejected, in particular as we approach the final decision on Dec 19th.
I think allowing for adjusted rankings in response to argument is good, and that will hopefully move a few things into the accepted state.
I would suggest that all remaining limbo proposals are individually decided by consensus, meaning two supporting and none opposed. This ensures that we have a decision on each proposal that reached this stage, and don't implicitly leave out the bottom N if we run out of time, for example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've clarified at the end that we have to actually make a decision about any remaining proposals, that is they can't just be ignored. But I'm really hoping that we don't have to use that. If it's clear that everyone is "meh" about a proposal to the extent that we don't even discuss it that seems like a pretty clear sign that it's not important enough to be part of Interop.
2025/selection-process.md
Outdated
Proposals that have strong positive consensus (majority P1 rankings, | ||
no P3 rankings) are immediately adopted. Proposals with a strong | ||
negative consensus (majority P3 rankings, no P1 ranking, or P1 only | ||
from the champion) are immediately dropped. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does majority here mean 4 given that we have 6 participating organizations? The details here might change the number of proposals that are covered by this by a lot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've changed the wording to make it clear that it remains a judgement call, not an algorithm. Given that it's a new process it seems better to allow additional flexibility here.
1741ff1 removed all the language about which parts of the process are confidential and which are not. I think it's still important that this all be defined beforehand. Microsoft's position is still that the Interop process should follow the model of web standards development by doing things in the open such that positions and discussions are public. But at the very least, organizations should be able to share which proposals they are championing and why, since revealing that information won't give full visibility into how the final votes and vetoes stack up. |
I agree it's important that any confidential parts are explicitly marked. Per our charter we operate in public except where a process document like this one says otherwise. Google's preference is to operate in public, including our all or positions on specific proposals. If there is some confidentiality in the process, we think it's important to at the very least clarify that it only applies to sharing the positions of other organizations who want them to be confidential. This wording from the original revision of this PR would do the job:
|
To be clear there's no intended change to the confidentiality compared to last year i.e. the details around proposal ranking and selection remain confidential to participants. Of course there's not, and never has been, any restriction on commenting positively or negatively about specific web technologies in general. I need to update the PR to make that clear. However, the possibility of specifically allowing people to talk about the proposals they are championing is something I'd also considered, and would be worth discussing as a group. |
…t orgs can share their championed proposals.
Last meeting I believe we were discussing these points but ran out of time. To help focus the discussion for next meeting I've pushed a suggestion for language that further clarifies the first point and opens up sharing of championed proposals. Let's dig into this more Thursday. |
Thank you @dandclark! I've included this in the agenda for tomorrow, #674. The wording you've suggested looks good to me, and is in line with Google's position/preference in #657 (comment). |
* Restore proposal templates from Interop 2024 These are the 2024 templates without changes. * Update dates in proposal templates October 3 is from #657. * Align specification requirements with 2024 process Expanded to match https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/blob/main/2024/selection-process.md#open-call-for-focus-area-and-investigation-proposals * Update focus-area-proposal.yml
Based on the retrospective and feedback from proposal authors, this is a draft of the 2025 proposal review process to be reviewed by the team