-
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
65f3a88
Create selection-process.md
nairnandu 0f1bc46
Update selection-process.md
nairnandu 8e65fae
Update selection-process.md
nairnandu 84fbede
Update selection-process.md
nairnandu 1712a1a
Update selection-process.md
nairnandu 1741ff1
Update Interop 2025 Process proposal
jgraham 5a223b8
Calrify no changes to working mode
jgraham 764a6e2
Fix some review comments and remove alternatives
jgraham 68990ba
Update 2025/selection-process.md
jgraham f6b1e99
Clarify that confidentiality does not limit sharing roadmaps. Add tha…
dandclark 38b6b6e
Revert sentence on orgs sharing championed proposals
dandclark 66525d0
Update proposal submission dates
jgraham File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ | ||
# Interop 2025 proposal selection process | ||
|
||
Interop 2025 is an effort to increase interoperability across browsers | ||
in key technical areas that are of high priority to web developers and | ||
end users. This effort is part of the | ||
[web-platform-tests](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt) (WPT) | ||
project — an automated test suite for web standards — and run by a | ||
team of representatives from companies that make substantial | ||
contributions to browser rendering engines (including Apple, Bocoup, | ||
Google, Igalia, Microsoft, and Mozilla). | ||
|
||
Please see the [Interop 2024 Dashboard](https://wpt.fyi/interop-2024) | ||
and [Interop 2024 | ||
README](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/blob/main/2024/README.md) | ||
for the current iteration of the project. | ||
|
||
Each iteration of the project starts with an open call for proposals, | ||
followed by a selection and prioritization process by each | ||
participating organization. Final decision on the inclusion of a | ||
proposal is made by | ||
[consensus](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/blob/main/charter.md#:~:text=The%20team%20makes%20decisions%20based%20on%20consensus.%20A%20decision%20has%20consensus%20if%20it%20has%20support%20from%20at%20least%20two%20participating%20organizations%20and%20no%20opposition). For | ||
Interop 2025, the timeline and the selection process is as described | ||
below. | ||
|
||
## Timeline | ||
|
||
This is the general timeline for the Interop 2025 proposal selection | ||
process. The dates are centered on the Interop team meeting (Thursdays). | ||
Please note that the timelines are subject to change. | ||
|
||
* Proposal submission window (3 weeks): Sept 19th, 2024 to Oct 3rd, 2024 | ||
* Proposal selection: Before December 19th 2024 | ||
* Scope of the Interop 2025 project published: the first half of February, 2025. | ||
|
||
## Proposal selection process | ||
|
||
The aim of the proposal selection process is to generate a shared | ||
understanding of the merits of each proposal, and converge on a | ||
decision about the most impactful areas in which we can improve | ||
interop on the web over 2025. | ||
|
||
As in Interop 2023 and 2024, details of proposal selection and ranking | ||
remain participant confidential throughout the process. Final decisions | ||
will be published as the Interop team. | ||
|
||
Confidentiality does not prevent participating organizations from | ||
sharing their own priorities or roadmaps outside of the Interop program. | ||
|
||
### Prior to Proposal Submission | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: Before September 12th 2024 | ||
|
||
The interop team will develop a non-exhaustive set of signals/criteria | ||
that are considered important when assessing proposals. These will be | ||
made available to proposal authors, and used later in the process when | ||
championing and assessing different proposals. However they are not | ||
binding on any specific participant i.e. participants are free to | ||
consider additional criteria (such as individual resource constraints) | ||
and weigh the shared criteria as they choose. | ||
|
||
### Proposal Submission | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: September 12th to October 3rd | ||
|
||
Members of the web community, including participants, will be invited | ||
to submit proposals for Interop 2025. These will take the form of | ||
issues on the Interop GitHub repository. Issue templates and | ||
documentation will be provided to guide proposers towards proposals | ||
that meet the formal criteria (e.g. around testability) and which can | ||
be assessed according to the agreed criteria. | ||
|
||
Items from Interop 2024 which have not yet reached full | ||
interoperability will be automatically resubmitted, and will go | ||
through the process as for any other proposal. In addition new | ||
proposals can be submitted that extend the scope of existing focus | ||
areas (whether or not they have reached full interoperability). | ||
|
||
As in previous years proposals can either be for focus areas or | ||
investigations. For simplicity the remainder of this document will | ||
only refer to focus area proposals, but this also covers proposals for | ||
investigation efforts. | ||
|
||
### Champion Selection | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: October 3rd, 10th, 17th | ||
|
||
Interop participants propose focus areas, consisting of one or more | ||
proposals, that they would like to champion. Proposals will initially | ||
be shared in time for the meeting on October 10th, and champions | ||
finalised on October 17th. | ||
|
||
Where more than one participant wants to champion the same focus area | ||
proposal a single champion must be nominated for the remainder of the | ||
process. | ||
|
||
Champions and seconds (i.e. organizations that would champion a focus | ||
area but were not the final selected champion) are recorded for each | ||
proposal. | ||
|
||
There is no assigned limit to the number of proposals one participant | ||
may champion. | ||
|
||
In case different focus areas are put forward with overlapping sets of | ||
proposals, the participants are encouraged to work out a way to divide | ||
the proposals into focus areas in a way that satisfies everyone. If | ||
this is impossible then carrying forward multiple competing focus area | ||
proposals is permitted, but final selections will only allow each | ||
proposal to appear in a single focus area. | ||
|
||
Any proposal without a champion will not be carried forward. | ||
|
||
### Focus Area Proposal Refinement | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: October 24th and 31st | ||
|
||
Champions gather evidence of the impact of their proposals, using the | ||
rubric developed earlier. Specific participants may also be asked | ||
to provide (publicly available) information for all proposals where | ||
that participant has ownership of the information (e.g. standards | ||
positions, use counter data). | ||
|
||
### Focus Area Proposal Presentation | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: November 7th (double-length meeting) | ||
|
||
Each participant gets 15 minutes of meeting time to present the | ||
proposals they are championing, and make the case that they should be | ||
considered a priority for inclusion in Interop 2025. | ||
|
||
### Focus Area Proposal Ranking | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: Before December 5th | ||
|
||
Participants rank each proposal as P1 (highest priority) to P3 (lowest | ||
priority), or veto. | ||
|
||
There is no preset limit on how many proposals each participant may | ||
assign each rank. | ||
|
||
Initial rankings are submitted in time for the December 5th meeting. | ||
|
||
### Focus Area Ranking and Selection | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: December 5th, 12th, 19th | ||
|
||
Focus areas with any vetoes are eliminated. | ||
|
||
Proposals that have strong positive consensus (e.g. majority P1 | ||
rankings, no P3 rankings) are adopted. Proposals with a strong | ||
consensus of low priority (e.g. many P3 ranking and no P1 | ||
ranking, or many P3 and P1 only from the champion) are dropped. | ||
|
||
Proposals with mixed rankings are ordered according to the number of | ||
P1 rankings, followed by the number of P2 rankings, followed by the | ||
number of P3 rankings. Starting from the top of the ordered list | ||
participants who ranked the proposal lower are given an opportunity to | ||
explain their concerns, and suggest any adjustments that would change | ||
their perspective. Proposal champions get final say on whether to | ||
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 | ||
changes to the proposals, or the overall composition of the project, | ||
and the process repeats in the following meeting. | ||
|
||
Before the end of the December 19th meeting there's a final decision | ||
on any proposals without a clear resolution, and formal call for | ||
consensus on the set of selected focus areas. | ||
|
||
### Communication and Publication | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: Jan 9th, Jan 16th, Jan 23rd, Jan 30th | ||
|
||
Launch date is finalized. Focus area tests are labeled. Feedback for | ||
proposal authors written. | ||
|
||
### Launch | ||
|
||
**Timeline**: February 6th 2025 (provisional) | ||
|
||
The Interop 2025 dashboard is published. Proposal authors are provided | ||
with feedback and the original GitHub issues are closed. Participants | ||
publish announcements of the launch. |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.