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

Regular WG meeting? #92

Open
LJWatson opened this issue Mar 28, 2023 · 11 comments
Open

Regular WG meeting? #92

LJWatson opened this issue Mar 28, 2023 · 11 comments

Comments

@LJWatson
Copy link
Contributor

Would a regular, perhaps monthly, WG meeting be of interest? We're aware that other than TPAC we do not meet as a WG, so there is little opportunity for Editors to keep everyone up-to-date on their specs, or to ask the WG for help, guidance, or input on issues.

If you'd like @marcoscaceres, @siusin, and I to arrange this, let us know here (and include your preferred time zone so we can try to find a generally agreeable time).

@christianliebel
Copy link
Member

Happy to join, a monthly meeting sounds good. My time zone is CET.

@tomayac
Copy link

tomayac commented Mar 28, 2023

I’d be interested as well. CE(S)T here, too.

@aarongustafson
Copy link

I’d be interested. PT/PST here.

@NotWoods
Copy link
Member

I'd also be interested. P(S)T here too.

@inexorabletash
Copy link
Member

inexorabletash commented Apr 7, 2023

We've been noodling on the idea of a storage-focused meeting for a long time, but haven't made it happen. Maybe we can take advantage of your offer to make it happen?

Topics would cover specs within the WebApps charter (e.g. Indexed DB, Web Locks), adjacent specs (e.g. WHATWG's Storage, File System) as well as related incubations that we'd expect end up in the group or have strong dependencies (e.g. WICG's Storage Buckets, Local File Access).

We know of prospective attendees in PT/CET. Given the parallel workstreams it's unlikely we'd want to meet more than once per quarter. We'll try and point folks at this topic to gauge interest.

@a-sully
Copy link

a-sully commented Apr 7, 2023

cc @annevk @jesup @szewai

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

marcoscaceres commented May 2, 2023

Hmmm... so, timezones are a challenge here as it's not possible to do US/EU/AU (we were lied to! the world is NOT flat! 😜).

We could "interleave" two meetings a month in such a way that we could accommodate everyone and folks just attend when they can.

However, it would be good if we could somehow pre-populate agenda items before we meet. I've got no idea how we would do that (or if it's even possible), so I'm open to suggestions?... maybe possible through the W3C's cal system, but I've not checked.

I think if we were to run these they would be on the form of: "can you please take the following questions back to your internal teams for discussion?", mostly so we can make progress on various specs that are stuck without member input.

So, on that note... are EU folks open to mid-morning sessions? (or otherwise if @LJWatson was to chair those, it could be in the CET afternoon). And, for West Coast folks, could you do late afternoons (~4pm) to accommodate Oceania?

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

marcoscaceres commented Sep 4, 2023

Heya friends! Just noting this topic will be part of TPAC. We are discussing how we resume regular calls at 16:00 Sevilla time on Monday 11 of September and what that might look like.

@LJWatson will be leading that session.

@dmurph
Copy link

dmurph commented Sep 13, 2023

I would love this. I think I may have missed this direct meeting / topic discussion, but we talked about it at various times for various follow-ups from many spec proposals discussed here.

@HowardWolosky
Copy link

Would also love this. I only noticed the survey on the topic in the Day 1 notes after the survey had already closed. I'm in PST over here.

@siusin
Copy link
Contributor

siusin commented Oct 5, 2023

Would also love this. I only noticed the survey on the topic in the Day 1 notes after the survey had already closed. I'm in PST over here.

Noted. Thanks.

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

No branches or pull requests

12 participants