 All right. Hi everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, April 13 re edition of the standards meeting we moved from last week to this week due to a schedule conflict and stoked to see this worked out for everybody from the schedule perspective. Announcements as usual we start with there were a couple from earlier Robin do you want to share. A couple earlier to share the lift scholarship. Right. The Linux Foundation is offering scholarships for training and certification across the whole catalog of content, but for us it also applies to our node js training certification. So that's pretty cool so if you're interested in that, go check it out we did a blog and tweeted from open js as well. And other quick announcements obviously we are we are the standards meeting so yeah it's usually like oh there's a program committee meeting on Thursday for open js world. So we can kind of move in into the topics of like execution for breakouts and like how we want to handle slack and Q&A and stuff with the speakers, because we should be announced, we've sent out announcements to the people we selected so that'll all be live on the website here in a week or so. I do come to that if you're interested. The other thing that I shared in Slack this morning which is cool. The W3C has a, and this is obviously very relevant to our interests. The W3C has a new spec editor community group that they have opened. It's super jazzed. It's shared by Marcos Caseros who's the author of Respec and Bikeshed which are two awesome spec editing tools. And the focus of this community group is on like tutorials and mentorship and you know just things that you might need or benefit from in order to be a great spec editor. I think, wow, that's awesome. That's certainly something that I think we want to support. So I encourage y'all if you're interested to go join that community group. It's open to anybody too. So there's that. And there's also a new charter out for the web editor working groups if you're interested in like document or text editing or anything like that on the web. And the W3C has this new working group charter out as well. Yeah. That is that. What was, was there any, no there wasn't, there hasn't been a TC39 meeting since the beginning of March so we're we're good on that front unless I'm missing any Richard am I missing one. No, cool. I also want to welcome him and here from TC39 Hello, who writes all of the awesome, like recaps of TC39 meetings and thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. So, okay, any other announcements. All right, cool. Moving men into our into our topics for today. Next up we have issue 132 on our repository which is joint statement on open source and standards with the W3C. So if you'll recall, we talked about this, you know, as part of a like further alignment with the W3C we're going to talk about some things we can be doing to help, you know, learn from that community and to help support that community and vice versa. And one of the things that we thought would be great would be to sort of express more of our intent. And so that's something that Robin is leading and hopes to kind of have something to share our state more publicly, but she wants our feedback and our input on this so take away Robin. So we have more of a working session. And I think if we have a joint statement it could be something that we start with W3C and then as we get something we like, and that's harmonized we could take it to some other standards groups as well. And talk about sort of our shared principles and a pledge at our conference on June 2. So that is sort of around the corner. And some things that I think that we all who work in standards and open source may be super obvious may not be obvious to the outside world who aren't tracking all the great work happening in the community. So, thinking if we could have a little bit of a brainstorm working session on some sort of key shared principles that we have between open source and open standards and how they work better together. And how the communities overlap, and how we can grow sort of that next kind of almost like the pipeline and next generation of people working in that space. Does that make sense. Yep. Great. I'd be happy to join that working session. But also, we could start to, you know, collaborate on a document or something if that was of interest. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I said I don't know if it makes sense to have a separate working session to start brainstorming some things now. If we see any sort of obvious areas. Let me see. I think one of the obvious areas is in like the creating inclusive communities like that like there's a lot to be shared and learned from and we already kind of are seeing spaces where communities are getting together and and and workshopping things. There's also like the educational thread of like making sure people understand the value of open source and the value of standards and and so it seems like those are easy wins if you will. And that's what I mean I started out I've just been sort of brainstorming on my own as well I had sort of, you know, the whole shared principles around privacy, equality, human rights in the web. I think those are pretty strong as well. I'm probably diving more into details on how you should read the spec in itself, which is an art per se. So how will you pick up a particular section try to understand what's happening and reading specs, and also like contributing to specs are like interesting parts. Yeah. I had, yeah, I was sort of. I actually had simplifying in my sort of my own personal brainstorm which I think, again, it's when Jerry talks about the educating piece to and with what you were talking about. Yeah. So how to read how to understand. What was that third piece you mentioned how you contribute back to you contribute back. So I think this video cast called read spec with us, where we pick up parts of the spec and try to read it and give some code examples and then try to write right through the spec again. That's just an effort to start we have picked up the egg musket specification. Do you have a link to that I'd like to put it in our, in our bucket for this upcoming issue which I am super glad you're here for. I'm just typing it in the chat. I think there's one shared principle that I maybe some don't understand that the standards group standards bodies are working toward us as agility. I know it's been sort of a longstanding effort right in a variety of ways. So how we can make that a little more real or at anything concrete around that. Some of the interesting pieces I've observed is, I think I saw it in one of the node words they were they made the GitHub projects open where they had all the milestones and roadmap about in the public where people could, you know, comment on the kind of help them to prioritize what features that folks are looking for and the project board and the milestone, the roadmap everything was open and folks could see it and they got a better idea on where the project is heading next and thereby they were able to contribute more meaningfully on what they felt the problem was and whatever and that helped to prioritize the solutions to. That's great. Other things we would want to highlight I mean I guess in terms of obviously we're just as a shaping some of these ideas into a statement means necessarily that it's going to be kind of high level. But but I think maybe there's other like themes we could speak to and let me just ask that I mean dramatically when y'all think about open source and open standards and being going together like Robin says motherhood and apple pie or two sides of the corn a coin or peanut butter jelly or you know whatever. What are what are some of those things that y'all think of. Maybe the recognition that standards can be derived from open you know open source projects or a combination of both that there's no like what I want to say there's no right way or wrong way when an industry comes together. And that I think that the stakeholders in the in the in the standards process include not just the industry stakeholders or not not just you know corporate entities within the industry. Yeah, Mike there's an impact component that I think historically does your a standardization activities have to. You know, bring in which you know the public policy angle and all of that stuff which doesn't often, but in open source work increasingly concerned about what is the social impact of our technology. I know I'm not sure that's where you were going exactly but that's that's where that's what you inspired me to say. I agree hold hard to do. And I think also like to your point and Robin's point like it is often the case that a standardization activity inspires an open source project and vice and an open source project and you know like they. They're going to go downhill together. Maybe don't put that a nickel. One aspect of standards work that I've ended up needing to learn by effectively by by practice by practice and experience is that I'm coming into standards work from an interesting and non sort of default point of view which is from open source. Most of the people participating are industry in one way or another, and are effectively being paid to participate and are there representing more or less some amount of corporate interest. And it's, I don't know what really is the lesson to take away from the experience but but it took me a while to realize that. Some people are more equal than other people, and that in order to do to really fit in and to make make a good positive effort in standards work. You kind of need to realize who you are in the position in the background you're coming from in order to get your points and thoughts across. In contrast to that, if we can look into looking to the TC 39 community because we also have this concept of invited experts right so it may not be that they are part of the paid members group for the TC 39 itself the ECMA. The foundation, but rather they can be like an invited expert, given that they had a good proposal to present and they have a champions for it. They could be invited to the standard body in the meetings and they could be part of the presentation, even though they are not part of the paid members plan. I mean that's actually the position I've almost always had in standards work. You know and I also kind of wonder to have to kind of go do some like historical digging. But to what extent open source actually I think probably answers a lot, because my first recollection of invited experts at W3C at TC 39 was from jQuery. And you know I like I think that that's a way that the open source community has influenced standardization activities for the better, you know, by helping them to open up doors to invited experts who aren't necessarily backed by mega corp.ink, which is I think it's do more neutrality in open source project, not always. Maybe coming from our kind of multi stakeholder foundation projects, but I'm that's that's a great and interesting question. I think standardization people would say absolutely not that they have way more neutrality because of the formality of their processes. Yeah process, and they would probably fight you to the nail on that. Yeah. Hey Mike, thanks for joining we're brainstorming like sort of key principles around, you know, shared principles around open source and open standards for our W3C open JS plus plus plus others perhaps. Right, right. Yes, I am late. Let's take a time. What is there a draft I could look at to see what I missed. I will take the action to draft the draft or bring on a brain army now we kind of all have our yeah. Where is there anything any points you agreed on so far. It's been just sort of sharing we talked about inclusivity, kind of that educational piece and what bringing value and bringing new people along. Sharing, you know, educating more folks on how to read and understand aspect and how to contribute back. We talked some about agility. We talked about there's no one right way to do it. We talked about the social impact of our technology. We've talked about sort of being sort of that invited expert, like Emily often and others are sort of these invited experts and maybe that's where a lot of the open source folks have contributed back, as opposed to being sort of one of the we're going to be talking the mega corp participants. Okay, yeah, thanks I see and I see the link to the to the doc and the minute so. Yeah, yeah, proceed sorry I'm late. It would be kind of interesting to like just take that like historically these two things have been influencing each other for a while. And we have evidence of that. And we have this shared, like a lot of shared values like both open source, most open source and most SDO orgs are going to say we value openness and transparency and vendor neutrality like that's not controversial so like there seems to be like a lot of like low hanging stuff that we can acknowledge is like. And vendor neutrality I love the idea to how related standards are related open source projects can coexist. You know, that people ask us that all the time right mean so. How about how they compliment each other if you talked about that. I suspect that standards are somewhat more approachable by end user types than you know code. But you need end users in the conversation as well as implementers in the conversation. Yes, from the again, going back to the TC that night's perspective we we when we get consensus it's it's it's obviously like we have the implementers as well as the champions are folks who have propositions who might not be implementers sometimes they are too, but that's like the crucial points that because they would they could they could foresee a few things that a champion or a guy who's presenting might have missed based on their experience they would say hey, this might cause an issue because the whole idea is not to break away right so there are again cases where even after all folks being vigilant there are a few cases where for some of the proposals did did break and it was amended quickly but the implementers would have insights on things that folks who are non implementers might not and they would say hey, this might be a performance bottleneck or and they might say hey, this is not really feasible, given these constraints and and and like and the interesting part that I don't normally hear out when in public it's like the fundamental question that people ask hey, I have an idea for a proposal and then how do I go about it. Then they learn that hey, there is this set of members who are part of the community who who get the you know, ability to vote for proposals and there's this meeting that happens where there's this consensus that is being asked for and we arrive at a content saying that hey, do we approve for this proposal to go from a stage, say, one to two on life. And that's that that feels like a bottleneck for few many saying that hey, I do have an idea but how do I get it in. Should I just go ahead and create an issue or we do also have a repository which is more like a template for proposal which you can fork and fill in your proposal details. And then we do have this discuss discussion forums where people would go ahead and post their ideas and tag it as potential proposals and some champion might say hey I like this idea or most of the time the discussions would be long saying that hey, this idea really work or most of them might have appeared in the past and there might be references saying that hey, this is why it didn't work and and some champion might agree upon that hey I would like to vote for a champion for this idea and that's when it kind of kicks into the process. So few few many folks feel that there's a bottleneck of entering into this. It is like the channel where I have an idea but how do I go about it like that that kind of is is is is is kind of laid out in the in the site where we talk about how the process works and all of it, but it's not clear for everyone and and I think giving more clarity on such things would be useful for a wider set of audience. Yeah. I think that actually touches a lot on one of the things that we have identified as a goal for the standards working group this year is to kind of help with the proposal feedback and discussion that seems like super connected. You also made me think about the fact that like an open source that is a fairly clear process you know like oh I'm using this library and I found the bug I'd like to do this let me just go open an issue. And it's that it's, it's there there's a plot there's one platform it's GitHub or get lab. And what is that for it's a archaeology journey if you're if you're trying to do trying to figure out what that means for for a standard. Reminds me to maybe Joe on like with the node project the predictability of the even and odd. You know how you ship things and I mean he might have talked about the roadmap a little bit. So. Yeah. Yeah, it's also a good idea. Yeah, it's a logical path forward right. Yeah, yeah predictable predictable. No, no surprises. I was able to bring I was able to bring the free and openness in the open source word but given that all the controversies that's happening so I would probably skip that topic for now. Robin, do you think we have enough like, we do. I will add it and then yeah, and then you all feel free to jump in. Add things, move things around what happened at all. I'll send something out the next day or two. Oh, thanks. Sweet. Robin will follow up with a draft. So, next topic issue number 130. This is discussion request as well for resources like read spec with us for helping people begin to onboard and learn about the landscape of as Mike champion says standards culture. So, just for those who may be doing tuning in for the first time. We identified this as an opportunity for our standards working group to make a difference because lots of SDOs may have their own process tutorials or resources, but there's not really a great kind of resources that have been curated to help people generically understand like what, what is this whole landscape, all about. And we want to pull some of those things together to help new developers who may be learning about this whole system that affects their livelihood from like a just sort of informational getting started dipping your daughter's standpoint and hopefully find the common grounds across a lots of different orgs like ECMA and what do we do and so on so forth. So, we have put out a call for everyone's favorite things like if somebody were to ask you. Where would I go learn like what would you share with them. So that's one part of the brainstorm. And the second part of the brainstorm is, what do we want. What, like, do we want to make a web page for this information like how do we want to present it and contextualize it for people. Derek, and myself have put a couple of things on the issue so far but this is a this is a time of link sharing a time of, you know, if you like, yeah, what would we want to, in an ideal world say here, new person is our art gallery of standards crap. That's that's very interesting question. If you for most of the folks out there like Twitter is kind of the main source where they just follow hash JavaScript or hash DC 39 and try to, you know, get the updates, but having one page which is more like a showcase of all this entities would be very interesting. As part of the TC 39 educators group we had this Twitter handle called standards in two minutes, where we were, the idea was like audience to have a post which would be like, say 500 words or less, and has been minimal code examples of a particular proposal which is a stage three or greater, and would explain the proposal in simple terms and would give an code example or a sample saying that hey this is how the proposal makes things better. And then we would go ahead and share it so the things that this account is tweeting is across the board it might be some dev to article it might be just a gist on GitHub or some personal blog but if it adheres to this particular construct we are tweeting it here in this handle. The other pwa that I had built a few years ago was called yes features dot in the ideas on similar lines where it said hey we have. Yes, five years six when it was called so now it's more like years 20, 20, 20, 20, 19 and 20, 20 and likes and saying that these are the new things that came in as part of years 20 20 for example and these are how the code snippets for each of these features look like and this is what is it about, but that's more about educating on the features but how would one contribute to the proposal itself or how does the life cycle of the proposal looks like. We do have things like that on the PC that tonight that the main website itself, but I feel taking it as an use case and trying to explain it and quick, maybe a five minute or less of a video and and giving an example would, would So wider set of audience, I presume as of today we have an huge page which talks about each of the stage what is the requirement and at this particular stage is it production ready at this particular stage, we are like seeking for feedback from developers and at this particular stage, it's under a flag, and it has a lot of details in it, it's it's I'm not saying that we don't have enough documentation or content, we already have all of it which is pretty good, but how do we simplify it and increase the radius of reach is something that we need to think through. Cool muted. I think about a lot of like the standards and two minutes stuff a lot of like the TC 39 and like just education, like your work, you know, is is really helping people get the what, and that's kind of what they subscribe on Twitter to the hashtags and stuff. But I think in some cases what is missing is the why or the how. And that's, I think our groups intent to help answer more because they, there's this growing question of like, well why should we do X, Y or Z project as a standardization activity. Why not just do it in GitHub, super legitimate question. If you don't understand the purpose of a standardization, you know activity or you just haven't been introduced to it and, and I think I don't have the book with me right now but there's this there's Etsy put out this like mega collection of slides and materials that's like walks people through in a very business class fashion of like, you know here. And I like well okay this is great. And it's a developer is not going to read this material. So, you know I'm kind of like, and it's not was also very like skewed to the Etsy point of view of the world so the question is like well what's what's the view of why and how that encompasses TC 39 work that encompasses W3C's work. So that people can go okay this makes sense to me and I now I want to get involved in blah. I mean yeah I mean this team could create a custom initiative right for like a one stop shop. It doesn't have it could be under open JS or it could be broader than that so I mean totally open to however. This group thinks it would be most useful. I'm not the most caught. Now I was just gonna say how to curate that information and share it so. So, it may be kind of just sharing a little bit more of like how I think about it. I don't know. It's been six years ago at this point. I made this little data that of his thing I just popped in this chat, because I was like wait, what is going on here like. How does this all come together. I'm confused. And so what I've been chasing ever since then is sort of like the view that helps make that this mess make more sense. And I don't, and like help somebody sort of like find the onboarding path into that morass of stuff. The visualization is great because the most common question we see on the discussion groups is hey, this is a good thing but this is not really part of this. This is more like a W3C thing so you should probably go to here and put your proposal so. At the entry point few many folks would be confused that hey where do I put this proposal does it say I have to enhance fetch okay does the fetch API go to W3C or is it PC 39 like. So, some few many folks get confused at the entry point itself on which, you know, working group or standard committee that they need to express their thoughts and opinions towards. I would love to have a website for people like that we we maintained as this as the standards WG like. So maybe it's linked off the open JS.org site, which we're doing something like that for JS Landia so it feels like just kind of wash friends repeat the template and bada bing bada boom we've got a website that we can add to it that that I think would be a nice like. It would be a nice way to get started. If we have things that we want to share, I don't know, other thoughts though, Mike Samuel Richard Mike champ. Other folks with opinions. I like the idea. Yeah, just, just a lot of work to, you know, to chase this stuff down and curate it. I guess the question is like how much do we need to. Do we need to like contextualize it all or can we just say here is a list roughly categorized, you know, if you're looking for information on this try these links and that's how we get started. I don't know. Yeah, I think you don't let like say don't let perfect get in the way of good and start with something, you know, start with something. I think the most important thing is your right to to curate it so it's simplified a little bit, and then open to have contributions from outside this group as well. And it'd be probably useful to to think about what problem it solves or what the user avatar is or you know what what the, you know, users user story is all the stuff we used to talk about it Microsoft a Robin. So we have a fairly concrete idea of who the target audience for this is so it doesn't just, you know, get get overwhelming. I wonder whether I know Joe has done has organized an awful lot of office hour kinds of things. And I wonder whether using this, you know, kind of having a feedback loop between some kind of office hours where we, you know, some people answer standard related questions. And we use that to update kind of, you know, these explanatory things and maybe they also channel people who have further questions to the office hours. I wonder whether that would be worthwhile. I like the idea of the feedback loop and you know capturing information that gets generated, you know, from from real questions by real people. And I think Joe's, I mean Joe your goal was also to help diversify our participants to and maybe we partner with a university, or something like that to bring in, you know, a pipeline just just like sort of the chaos project did at the Linux and partnering with the university on on diversity research that maybe we, we do the same thing in the standard space right. Yeah, that sounds great. I thought the challenge I was running into was just getting enough interested parties on the call to really kind of dig into things but I think if we did partner with someone or did more outreach and promotion that could work. We're having trouble getting people on the line from the answering question side, you know, filming questions. I'm happy to, you know, kind of set aside some time to help. Maybe we start with an AMA. Sorry, Reddit, a question session, whatever we call it. A query me this. I like that. We can't use AMA because it's trademarked by Reddit in case, you know, that in case you ever thought you might want to use that phrase. But we have been doing those and they actually have been quite popular often not always in exact real time but we time, we kind of time stamp them and do blogs on them and we do get a lot of interest. Once I'm part of this trademark is a useful factor to disseminate. So I'm part of the developer students commit club in like that Google's running so there are a lot of folks if you're looking for creating a pipeline from universities and students and like, we can get connected there with the DC. So that's a huge effort from Google in terms of reaching the gap between like developers and students and and something that just according to my mind was, I haven't really seen the Google summer of code having a category for standards per se because the focus is always there are a lot of free and open source surface but the focus is more on how you go and write code or make the piece of application better but not really in terms of standard. So if we could try to get in, you know, a segment for standards per se and try to see how folks could ideate and contribute need not be just enhancing the spec or likes it could also be just like improving the standard bodies website and making better adding more content making adding more visualizations and likes to that was a fantastic idea. Yeah, and open JS Brian, who's our program director has been working with the Google summer of code on that program so that is a fantastic idea. I'm not sure, you know, we got. I'm not sure what like how to turn turn this conversation into like, what's the next small step. As y'all were sharing things I was popping them into the issue so we can keep track of stuff. But I think it sounds like one next small step might be to set up like the office hours ish with Joe, like Joe had. And to like Mike Samuels point we can, we can invite Mike we can we can invite a professor Andrew. What the heck is his last name. So there's a professor who on Twitter friends with who does a lot of research and standards, and like he would be great, like, you know, so we can maybe do these but then invite some guests or something by guests from itf or wherever. That'd be good. Emily had a nice idea as well on chat. Yeah. Yes. We have none. Yeah, and that's a good point. And that feels very much connected with the discussion thing and with with the discussion strategy to which we haven't. We haven't got to and we're basically almost out of time for today so Emily can I put this on our agenda for next time. You're absolutely cool. So I think about the work on the semantic interoperability and a lot of policy issues. Actually quickly save check there's so many good links and I was just thinking same thing. So, so that's that and then I think we should keep to my champions point thinking about like the use case for a website that displays this this this content that we're sharing. Cool. Well, let's keep thinking about it because I think there's a lot of stuff here. There's a lot of good, you know, there's good material there's so much good material and just like if there's a way we can help make it make sense for more people. I think that's just All right. Um, I did want to because I realized in the note stack, there's a missing issue that I had tagged. And that is the recurring meeting time conflict that we periodically have because of the CPC working group. And I think we can solve that by go double click into this link here because I think there was a good proposal. That either have the meeting two hours earlier on conflicting days which sometimes and airs with with Jordan but and, you know, or or also just shifting it a week and I think that would possibly solve our problem as well. I think if you shifted a week it still ends up running into trouble every fourth week or something I'm not sure. I was, I'm not exactly sure but I was thinking about it this morning and I think that might be the case. I think it's going to be at nine because the 9am and 7am for Pacific or for two. Yeah, it's because the CPC meeting does two in a row at one time and then two in a row at the next time so at some point it's going to I think every four weeks it's going to bump into the one of those meetings. The alternative is to just move it, you know an hour earlier an hour later. I think it's going to be fine to move it an hour earlier. I don't think that would interfere with any ongoing meetings emailing would that work for you. Earlier would work. So, any, any qualms with that I would imagine that would be better for the West coasters to, but not sure. I don't have anything at one o'clock, you know, for that time slot for me so it works great for me. I don't either and I've always had our CPC meetings and then like this gap and then, and so it's fine for me to like, which is nice for a lunch, but you know, or we just eat on the call and people want to see that. Yeah, it's the best. I'll send a poll in slack and because that seems to be the place where most people are likely to see it and just say hey if we did it one hour earlier. Would that cause great difficulty for anyone. Of course I'd recommend opening an issue just so that it's there. In addition to the poll doodle whatever. Probably overkill but yeah, the question and an issue would be good. I have another thought if I can move on to it. A question of sorts. I was wondering if this standards group and the work that we're doing should be a collab space in a way to kind of promote the idea of collab spaces and kind of make it. The standard spaces are more oriented towards outside people getting more involved too, and I think that we have brought more folks involved in the standard space and it seems like it feels more like a collab space in some ways. I don't mean to be like semantic, but my thinking is that if we promote it as a collab space and it's another cool collab space that we're, we have at the open jazz work. So I was thinking about it earlier. I think it's a good idea I think maybe some of our like programs that we like, for example, you know, discussion spaces and that kind of stuff could be instances of collab spaces. The challenge is that with the standards working group we are like chartered by the CPC and delegated for decision making purposes in a way that we do not do with collab spaces so I can see that being a little weird from like a, but it's worth chewing like I think we should we should kick on that a bit. Yeah. Also I run the CPC so I can just change that at any point. Wow. That how it works. Oh, I forgot Emily was on here nevermind. Wow, power trip. Motherhood and apple pie. kidding of course. Emily runs the CPC. So true. I'm cool. All right. Well I've got some stuff to follow up with in our issues. We will take up some of the proposal discussion related topics that Emily and Amanda brought up today in our next call. We'll keep, we've got the draft that will be collaborating on update to the time, and then looking at days slash options for office hours query me this may whatever the logging acronym that Mike provided in chat is and I think we'll I think we've got lots of good stuff. So thanks everyone for a super productive meeting. Super productive it flew by thank you. Yeah. Time flies when you're having fun. It sure does standards standards I know it's fun that's that's one of our key principles right. Yeah, my like my mission is like make it cool like we're going to make it really cool. It's always been cool. Just go tell my husband that