RFC 116: Interop 2023

[foolip]

Rendered

[foolip]

This is a big RFC, so I'd like to call out some things worth looking at:

• The timeline! We should stick to it, so review it carefully!
• To avoid the proposal/sub-proposal structure, proposals should be "as specific as reasonably possible", and I've added a grouping/dropping step. Dropping requires consensus, it's not doing the support/neutral/oppose positions over again.
• Investigation efforts aren't mentioned and "investigate" is not one of the possible positions on proposals. Should we have explicit "investigate" proposals, and what should we require for them? I think it's fair to say these got off to a slow start in 2022, can we improve on that?
• User needs are mentioned, since that is what motivated the Web Compat focus area of 2022. How to weigh developer needs, user needs, etc., is left to the participating organizations.

[gsnedders]

FWIW, I'm not totally sure it makes sense to actually have one of these RFCs annually at this point; I think there's broad agreement across the Core team that we should keep on doing this as long as there's cross-vendor interest.

I'd be more interested in an RFC that acts closer to a charter for the Interop team going forward, and leave it down to that team what happens (potentially with an explicit limitation where it only holds as long as it has a similar coverage of browser vendors to the Core Team).

In a sense, I suggest we focus on the governance section here, and define the scope of what we believe Interop should be.

(Thus not immediately commenting on the rest.)

[foolip]

FWIW, I'm not totally sure it makes sense to actually have one of these RFCs annually at this point; I think there's broad agreement across the Core team that we should keep on doing this as long as there's cross-vendor interest.

I'd be more interested in an RFC that acts closer to a charter for the Interop team going forward, and leave it down to that team what happens (potentially with an explicit limitation where it only holds as long as it has a similar coverage of browser vendors to the Core Team).

In a sense, I suggest we focus on the governance section here, and define the scope of what we believe Interop should be.

I like that direction if others in the core team and interop-2022 team are on board with it.

Maybe a setup like this?

• Work done in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop
• A charter.md which is created by the RFC process and can be amended by it
• A folder or markdown file per year, backfilling with interop_2022.md

[foolip]

Alright, I've pushed two changes:

• Define investigation effort proposals
• Simplify consensus to use the same definition everywhere

I think that resolves all feedback, except the decision making process which I suggest we do in a coming interop team governance RFC.

Everyone please take another look.

[foolip]

I still need to change this to no longer refer to a 2023 repo or team, to instead say that we'll rename the existing ones.

[foolip]

Alright, those updates now made as well. I'm not aware of any more changes that need to be made, but I might have missed something. Please review :)

[foolip]

I've addressed all the remaining feedback now. @web-platform-tests/wpt-core-team please review, for the final time?

[foolip]

Thanks for the review and fixes, @sideshowbarker!

[foolip]

I've now renamed the repo and the team, as per the RFC.