 All right, and we are live on YouTube. Welcome to the March 23rd edition of the OpenJS Foundation's Standards Working Group meeting. We've got a small collection of committee members with us today and hopefully you all are dialed in and watching on YouTube if you want. Small issue with the issue that creates our agenda. So I have shared that in this chat with us here and we'll get that fixed for next time. We have a few things to get through today. We start though with announcements. Anybody have any fun announcements to share? Anything we want to just FYI for this group? I think the biggest FYI or oh, tomorrow is our book club meeting. If you want to come to book club and talk about the, we're going to just mostly shoot the breeze, but also attempt to talk about a book called Working in Public by Nadia Edbald. That's tomorrow at 3pm Eastern and it's on our calendar. The other FYI announcement is just that we're, we've moved to the conference day. I think that's old news at this point or June, June 2nd and we're hoping to have the announcements of all of the speakers in the next couple of weeks. So just be on the lookout for that. Let's see how they're kind of late. I have one thing. Oh yeah, okay. Yeah. Our wonderful Jory Berson was featured in a GitHub read me article. If you missed it last week, encourage you to read it about open source and open standards and how some of the experiences she had in her path and her journey. So it's pretty awesome. And we were super proud of Jory. Thank you, Robin. I was my four year old would say though, boring. No, definitely not. Super duper not boring is Jory. All right, thanks. Thank you, thank you. Cool. All right, let's dive into our agenda and actually maybe before I forget it, let's start with the one that's actually not an issue that Robin raised to me just prior to the meeting. So recall, if you will, our many different strategic directions and the fact that we've been having these very interesting and fruitful conversations with the W3C about how we can collaborate and do more together. That's going really well. We've got a few concrete things that we'd like to move forward together on some of which we'll talk about today. But one of the things that kind of percolated was perhaps building a shared principle statement. We're members of the W3C, the W3C you're considering joining us. It's sort of like a, we love each other sort of off the way to go about it because there's not real money changing hands, but it's a, that's it. Memberships all the way down. Memberships all the way down. It's actually web rings and we're all just sort of like subscribed to my web ring. So anyway, one of the ideas was kind of like a principle statement. And Robin, I don't know if you want to kind of expand on that a little bit more, but we really like this as a general idea. Yeah, I think there's some things that we all just assume that we, you know, have shared principles on. I've done it a couple of times and you think it's just sort of, you know, it's just kind of assumed that we all share these principles. But once you get folks from across the industry to sort of sign a shared statement, it does really have impact. So I've done this a couple of times, once on cloud interoperability, once on health, IT and standards. And it is a really nice way to sort of be crisp on some kind of core elements of that. And I think you all have probably had similar experiences. So we have our conference coming up course on June 2nd. And if we had something that we could issue at that time, we sort of had that moment in time where we could, you know, amplify it much in a stronger way, we can include it in our keynotes and things like that. And I think to be a little bit more specific on like what the shared principles are, and this connects to this bigger conversation that's happening in among the different international standards and software organizations about what the relationship is between open source and standardization activities and sort of like that vision for how these things operate together for the benefit of like, you know, businesses and developer communities and, you know, all of that. It's all kind of thing, right? Yeah. And the W3C, you know, among the traditional standards orgs is often seen as a real leader in terms of doing things in a modern way. And so that should give you some insight as to how some of the others actually, you know, operate. But anyway, they're a real leader in that open source a standards org doing open source. And I think we are emerging leaders in an open source org doing standards participation. And I think that's sort of like the genesis of this idea. Yes, yes. Right. It would surprise I think the average person in the industry that we, that we, like you said, what love each other and it all works together, you know? So any questions or issues or, or like comment on doing something like this? I mean, how would y'all, do you think it's something we should do, something you, you know, include other standards organizations as well? Maybe if we laid it out with the organizations you had mentioned, we can get others to buy into it. Yeah. Sign on. That's a great idea. Got a plus one from Brian, a thumbs up from Joe. Thumbs up from Richard. Cool. Pardon? What'd you think? Right on. I gave a thumbs up, but yeah. Oh, sorry, I missed it. Okay. So I think then maybe as the next step, Robin, we should just draft something and the other kind of stakeholder in this one obviously is the W3C and Dom and Jeff over there are the folks that we would collaborate with on this. But we, it's probably prudent for us to start first and give them something to look at. Okay. All right. And I'll also make an issue to capture this too. Awesome. All right. Cool. Julie too. Issue. All right. Next thing on our list is issue 130. Actually, you know what? I'm going to save that for last because that's more of an open-ended discussion and the others are hopefully more tactical. So skip 130 for 128. 128 is the nominations for designated W3CAC rep. That is uncontroversial. So it looks like we don't need to open a vote. And I thank everyone for giving a nice thumbs up on this. So I'm excited to be your new AC rep. On behalf of the... Yay, Jory. Yay. Okay, cool. Thanks, y'all. All right. I think there's nothing else to do except for to report to the CPC that that decision was reached. And do the actual term transition in W3C? And then also the rest of the work. And then sign up to get a lot of email. And Jory, we always blog when we have a new standards representative as well. Okay. Oh, that's a good point. So we need to... So nominations, let me note that really quick. Nomination issue, that was issue number 128. So we're going to fill CPC, sign up, Jory, blog. All right. Next agenda item is let's just checking in on 114, the strategic planning and goal setting issue. And I think I'd like to figure out how to transition now from this sort of discovery phase, which is what we've been at. First off, does anybody need like a quick context refresher of where we're at with this particular project? Are we good? We may be good. This is the whole thing where we've been like getting lots of feedback from- Is there any updates on the feedback since last time? The one big change is that we talked to Node, the Node TSC, and unsurprisingly, got a different, other perspective and other feedback. Interest primarily, I believe in number five, also number two, strategy number two was that discussion. Space and number five was the educational resource development. I would say too that they were pretty enthusiastic about, I think, across the board. We got a lot of all of the above as well. Yeah. So pretty supportive, that's great. But as we look at sort of like the data that's come in, I think we're really kind of driving more and more toward two and five being the predominant choices. But again, many people are saying they like all of them. And number six, which is the Node Jerks strategy. I've given all of these like short code names. So number six is Node Jerks. Everybody likes Node Jerks, but they see it as something that we can do as we, or something that we can promote as we are working toward another objective, which I kind of, you know, I get. And I think that we should take that there. So two is the discussion forum and five is education. This also actually fits well potentially with some things that the JDF wants to do with regard to educational resources for people learning about standardization. So I think there's gonna be partners we can work with to get some of these things accomplished, which will be great because we're such a small group, you know, comparatively. So I think it's all of that being said, on number 114, the strategic planning and goal setting, I think we're probably at a point where we need to say we're gonna focus on, you know, for example, two and five and here are the atomic projects that we want to try and build for two and five. For example, are we comfortable? Like, are we there? Are we ready to say, okay, let's close that issue and now focus on those projects and brainstorming some projects for that? Or do we feel like we need to do, you know, something before that step? What else would we have to do? I don't know. That's the thing. This is the first time through this process. So, you know. There's nothing that jumps out at me as like, we should do this other thing first. Well, I guess the biggest thing is taking a decision on which of those strategic directions we want to go with. So I guess that's the, that's, that is the thing, right? Do we want to say, yes, it's two and five or do we want to? Do you have them like candy? I'm just gonna say it might be worth projecting. Yep. Yeah. Oh, if Robin, you've got that deck handy I'll let you project maybe. Let me, let me see. I'm gonna take a second. Oh, and then we did the short one. We did the short one, but actually I think the expanded one might be a good idea. I can find it. So is your background really that blue or is that like digital? It's blue. It is that blue. It is that blue. It might even be bluer than what you're seeing. It's intense. I like it. You know what I want to say right now? You're blue up a D, up a Dye. Sorry, everyone. Oh, Jory, I don't know if I can put it in quickly. I think I may, maybe I got it downloaded. I had to make an Eiffel 65 joke. It was really important. Oh, sorry. Here we go. Recess. I feel like you gained some points just for knowing who actually that was. My God, man. Okay, you got it. I'm just, my computer's being ultra slow today. Here we go. Let me share. Okay. Got it. All right, cool. Okay. Two, three. Okay, two is right here. Come on. One was the space for polyfills. Two is discussion. And so, and you know, I think just to map this to stuff that looks familiar, if you recall a few weeks ago, I guess it's been a couple months ago at this point. You know, for example, Guy Bedford came and talked a little bit about a proposal that he was considering championing. And this is that space where proposal authors can come get feedback and input from community stakeholders, which is something that's quite valuable all the way around. We don't have a super defined process for this, except for on occasion, you know, folks go, oh yeah, let's go ask these folks, you know, for input. And I think we could do more if we put some rigor around this and maybe operationalize it a little bit, so that we are getting more awareness out there that there's a topic that may impact, you know, such and such projects in the foundation. And you know, this is the kind of feedback that the proposal author is looking to get in that kind of thing. So I think it's pretty useful. It was one of the ones that was most interesting to a number of our projects that kind of weighed in on this. So this is two. So is two also open to like submissions from non-? Yeah, I don't think we're saying that there's any restriction on. So like do you imagine things that are in WICG submitting issue requests, like, hey, we have this thing, would you, maybe your project care to comment on it or? Yeah, I don't think we would. And in fact, one of the, in the later calls that we had WICG and what WG were two groups that we don't have like this formal relationship with, but for which the project said they'd like to learn more about and have more opportunity to interact with. So I would think yes that we would. Great. Yeah. I think just philosophically our foundation, I mean, we invite non OpenJS projects to come to speak at our conferences. I think we're always reaching beyond our foundation. So so that's two. And then five was this onboarding space, right? So we identified that a number of the standard bodies may have some materials that help people understand their process. That's specific to them. But and there are also lots of other resources out there that may describe generically. Sorry, I'm eating these chocolate light up. Generically, how which group does which standards and that kind of thing, but there aren't a lot of resources for people who really want to like get in and grow, perhaps a part of their career in standards. So this would be creating more of a resource that we help curate that's not specific to any. One. Web standards body, but rather helps one be prepared for participation in multiple. I think this one also helps, even though it's kind of helping grow people. I think it solves a common theme. We heard that, oh, yeah, I can get standards done because I know the right person. So if there's a little more transparency and openness just across the board, I think it helps. And multiple friends. So these were the two that I think. And I think four was another one, which is one just before here. And four is the strategy of supporting individual projects that have standards related goals. So, for example, AMP getting more involved with Kat at the W3C or other types of format standards, that kind of thing and providing them resources and support, perhaps to advance their own spec using the JDF templates or going to work with a group and helping to onboard them and say a working group or something as they may need. And we kind of are doing the thing is like what's interesting is for all of these, I feel like I could find something that we have done or are doing that sort of fits that. And it's sort of a question of what we really want to build on the most. So these are the these are the ones that folks have. Really leaned into the most. But we need to decide. So decisions, who wants to make the decision? So number two, five and four, right? Give me give me the quick slides again for the OK. So OK, well, this one seems obvious to me. Number two seems like if we got positive feedback, we should do that. It's my vote. And then number five was the like helping people get involved in standards and that also seems really good to me, especially given the other discussions about like joint statement that we can make and the sort of meetings we've been having with W3C and so on. So so those two seem really positive to me. If we got really positive feedback on them, then I think we should do them. Agreed. If you say that number four is maybe lighter on support, but still pretty high. I would propose that we have zero of these kind of right now. And starting with two seems like a good place to start. And like not bite off more than we can chew. Let's pick two and try to do a really good job with two. And it's just my opinion. I don't know. Yeah, it almost seems like this one would come out of the work on the other two, you know. Yeah, maybe it's a little bit of a blurry line. Yeah. A number of the projects did sort of also kind of see how, in many ways, all of these are connected. And I agree also with Brian that the way to take this decision is not like which ones is not to look at it as which ones are we not going to do, but rather which ones are we going to try and create projects that and move the ball forward. So to speak. First, because we don't want to bite off more than we can chew. And so then the question is like, well, how they could bite. Yeah. I don't think we heard an immediate need from any of the projects specifically for four just yet. So you're right. It might be, you know, kind of an outgrowth of the others. So it sounds like, so, so if we said focusing on two and five as first order of business and scoping, then taking time to scope some specific sub projects to achieve under two and five, would we be pretty happy at the end of the year if we have accomplished maybe a couple of projects that fit each strategy. Would that feel good? That would feel pretty good to me. Okay. All right. I think at this point, you know, everybody here seems excited about all of them. Actually, that's the problem, right? When you have all of them and you like all of them. What do you do? But it feels like we have consensus to start with two and five and we can start brainstorming projects for two and five. And I've already got a couple actually for us to consider. Yeah. All right, so I'm going to record that we reached consensus to move forward on two and five. And we'll create new issues now for the projects focused on that. And I think I'm hoping that this actually becomes useful. This work becomes useful to us over like a longer term. Right. So I'm hoping that next year we're going back to this and going, okay, is there a project we want to execute under these? Because this feels like many years worth of opportunities, frankly. For us. Cool. So then on, that's, that's one, one 14. We're moving on to the next step. And that actually takes us really well into the discussion issue for today, and that's a standards education and onboarding project ideas. So if we take five is given. What do we, we need to perhaps flesh out some of those specific things that we could build to support. People learning and onboarding into standards, developments and activities. And so I'd love for us to like brainstorm on that. Here. Let me pop this issue in the chat just so y'all have it. There you go. All right. If we were going to build some resources for people to onboard into standards, standards, standards, standards, standards, trends, developments and like understand, slash, change standards culture, what would, what would we want that to be like, what would have been helpful to you when you were new in this? I think something about expectations is really helpful. helpful. Like there's a... W3C gives guidance like when you join a working group of like half a day per week is the commitment that you're making or something like that but like it actually varies quite wildly depending on the working group that you're joining and why you're joining. Like so like one thing is like people become really hesitant if they feel like they can't understand what's expected of them. I think it keeps a lot of people out of contributing at all or joining or whatever but then also I think there's a sort of a different thing here that's for people who are put into an AC role that they really they have that kind of in spades like that plus plus that it would be really helpful to like I don't know write something about that or give something provide a resource I think even just like a slack channel that people could join or something and ask sort of daft questions I know like people I reach out to because of voting things like frequently say hey well I have you on my company thrust me into this role and I really don't know what to do so I think that could be really helpful so that's a great point like there there's some leadership specific knowledge that I think is hard to gain like you know what's expected of and what does it look like to chair a working group or TC what does it look like to be the spec editor and you know sticking this is like years ago I feel like Jordan and I we talked about like yeah you heard your name was you eat your food and I talked about like how can we and potentially make it easier for a person to learn and kind of get support to become a co-editor or something because it's a lot of lift to edit to be an editor and it's hard one knowledge in many cases so you know is there a very mentorship or education expectation thing we can do there for that specific role well I think one of the challenges is everyone's got different like in the introvert extrovert sense like everyone's got different personalities and responds differently to advice to different advice so for example in TC 39 a former you know editor and delegate wrote a PDF about how to participate in standards you know specifically to 39 but like as a general thing and the one of the paragraphs the rough gist is basically show up and listen and be like for a while before you try to like say anything because then you'll get a lay of the land and be able to participate more effectively right and more than a few people have interpreted that as like shut up until you've achieved the appropriate you know until you until the gatekeepers have let you in right I have said it's okay for you to talk and that is absolutely not the intention and that's not how I read it but people have read it that way and so what I take from that is that even though I think that's good advice in every situation in life period to just like you know it's the the parable about like don't take the don't uproot the fence until you know why it's there right the but I think that it's really difficult to word the advice in a way that's going to achieve the desired effect on different kinds of people right because like someone who's very outspoken will who it heats that advice is going to probably benefit somebody who's very quiet and doesn't need any discourage or any encouragement to stay quiet right and who actually needs encouragement to speak up that person might react in a way that we don't want just to the same advice so I don't know I'm like I think I think that's for me that's the challenge is how do you like because there's people at all you know there's multiple spectrums and people that end at all ends of the spectrums and like how do you avoid excluding some of them while giving the other ones useful advice for them you know well so then that's that says to me that or a thought that comes to my mind is then it's got to be a multifaceted resource right like there's like gotta be here's some stuff for you to read or video for you to watch or whatever but then also here's this channel for you to discourse with Jordan and other people who've been served who have served in this role so you can kind of like calibrate for your you know right yeah would it be helpful to think about what sort of audience you we all want to prioritize you know the oh my gosh I've been thrust into this role I don't know what to do to you know a new person just getting started to boy I think this is pretty cool I'd love to be a you know I'd love to be an editor someday that's a great question one thing I realized after talking to when we when after we talked to like I actually don't remember who we're talking to maybe the W3C they was just aside time though I don't know was that it depending on also the age of the of the group so like for example TC39 has been around for many many years it's pretty well established in terms of its process and expectation for what the role does but there's all the time new community groups or interest groups and even sometimes new technical committees that ECMA for example which are much younger and haven't figured this out and so they're more likely to have you know because it's a new committee a participant in put into a leadership role who may not have had that prior experience and there's this so so I think that's a great question because like not just the experience of the person but also possibly like supporting new work areas that may be popping up like on a on a general sense is there any preference for like what we want to focus on is it like here's here's some established things and the way it works and some of the established fora versus like here's resources for like the the the new the new crew I don't know like maybe maybe it's even possible to have something that's general that includes that degree of nuance that like the answer is it varies a bit and here are some of the ways that it varies and yeah I don't know no I think that's a good answer having a generalized approach showing kind of that happy medium it makes a lot of sense so and then you can calibrate it up and down depending on the tactic right so yeah I think like partially beginning to assemble some kind of I don't know center on the web where a lot of these things can you can come to find them and then like also I assume they will link to other even existing really good content that exists on the subject like there are there are some good talks there are like I think Boku's document that they made is actually really good includes a lot of good stuff in one place you could link to but then also I think importantly like rather quickly get to where we have a link to like a slack channel or an IRC or something where say this list lacks a lot of nuance and details that we'll flesh out over time but you know in the meantime drop by and ask your question there's no sort of no bad questions here that I think that would also like maybe help inform like where to prioritize because like based on the kind of questions that people are dropping by to ask and stuff you would say well clearly there's a need for this thing because six people asked about this June 2nd we will have a hub on our website in a slack channel so nice we can go back work do a work back from there on existing and what we can accomplish with new perhaps I like that idea like we could use the the event deadline as sort of like a goal by which to have an MVP of like a of the pool of resources and a space during the conference for folks curious folks to come ask questions and that kind of that's a great idea. I love ship dates. Okay. So it sounds like some concrete things here. We need to kind of put a call out to our squad about standard squad. Yes. Okay. Making a t-shirt to just share their favorite like helpful bits. You know and we can at least throw all of that spaghetti in a bowl and then we'll organize it and then I think we'll want to probably figure out. I mean for now it's fine for folks to come in to our standard slack channel. We've got like 500 people in that channel and it's like 12 of us that ever talked too much but it's quite a bit. So I would think that we could just maybe start there and then break it out into another channel if we need. We could also humanize that a little bit too. So the folks in our group who are active or half leadership roles. We can have a section in our hub with a picture of them just one paragraph on what they do and more information you know. Oh that's a good idea. So then I guess that the other thing would be like to grab the volunteers from our group who feels like they have the bandwidth to perhaps do some spot mentorship and Q&A answering and here's a face and a name and you know real person who is here to ask you. I don't know if they would have to do mentoring. It's just it gives them a real person in a face if they do have a specific issue to reach out to instead of this mysterious. Who do I go to where do I go. You know what group does what. Yeah. Yeah it's a little bit different than just like shouting your question to the universe or something. Cool. All right. Well you know I realized actually while we were chatting that I forgot one standing item for our agenda because our agenda didn't make the way it's supposed to and I think we've got some clear sort of things we can document and move on this issue. So I'll close it out unless there's any other comment on the educational piece cool. So the standing issue that I forgot about was hey we had a TC 39 meeting between the last time we met and today and we love to hear from our reps with any interesting news or bits from the meeting and Jordan and Richard was there and I assume both we all went Joe I don't know if you went and any news to share anything exciting fund worth should we be waiting into. Yeah I mean the big one I think there's a few things but the big one is that temporal got stage three. So it's still yeah so that's that's great all of the engines are going to ship it behind a flag for now because there's some unresolved questions and but yeah moving to stage three is a big deal few other proposals advanced error cause is stage three so you can now pass an optional options bag to the second argument of any error constructor that includes a cause property and that'll get attached to the error and then presumably browsers and noted stuff will have friendlier displays of that information when available and then a few things you know the proposal for array find from last like move to stage two and module fragments move to stage one. I don't know about that class static blocks also moved to stage three so that's like inside a class body you can say static and some Curly's and then you can do some stuff and it'll like run once as part of defining class. And so popping back to temporal because I think that's one that's near and dear to open JS as moments in our and you know the moment team of obviously announced they're they're moving on from maintaining it and yet they have played I think an important part in this feature over time I wonder if we want to as a group do something to celebrate that connection or you know a lot of people are excited about this for sure. Yeah, I mean the moment maintainers had a different idea than I did about how PR strategy what I personally think would have been most effective is for a production ready poly fill for temporal to exist after it's stage three and to simultaneously recommend one or more of them while deprecating moment and sort of in one good fell swoop pushing the ecosystem to this better pattern but moment that it's separate you know sort of not deprecation but like its moment is done blog post last year and there aren't any production ready poly fills ready yet so you know you all don't have to agree with my PR strategy philosophy there but but if you did then we would wait and like we probably want to wait until one or more of those poly fills exist and then so because like the anyone who migrated from moment to like one of the moment competitors is now going to have to suffer a second migration because as soon as there are temporal poly fills everything else is immediately obsolete and like so yeah those are just my thoughts in general about how to address it like it's a good celebration but you know it it hasn't shifted browsers yet and there aren't poly fills so it's like a sort of more of a symbolic milestone right now than a concrete one. Well interesting if we'd gone for option one in our strategy then I'd be saying well you know like who could we like how can we start a polyfill for that in our I mean I I certainly have that on my list of things to build you know I have an ecosystem of poly fills that temporal would need to be part of but whether that will be you know it is highly unlikely that will be the only and possibly not even the first one that's available. So I imagine that if we give it enough time there will be probably three major one implementations mine core JS is and then the one that grew out of the proposal polyfill that's going to be deprecated soon and there may be more but there I expect at least those three to be viable at some point in the next coming months. Okay well we should keep our eyes open and on this and just because I like to highlight where we can where projects in our community members have been adding to the space anything else from standards you know from or one of our affiliations. I was just going to ask on the TC 39 is there a summary that we can forward to our projects. So the the last time we discussed that someone shared that another group was already providing summaries I don't remember who that was. I don't remember who shared that but it's I think the person is him and who typically does those what after maybe they sometimes they take about it's not going to get in. No hey month works for PayPal PayPal and this and and and I'm remembering that right it's meant right that's doing those. Yeah I'm pretty sure I mean there's a there's a few folks that do it a lot of people do their little blog posts with the updates but hey month in particular does as well. So I don't know if he realizes that we might be relying on him to do it but we can certainly yeah we so we could reach out and ask and I have a feeling he would actually appreciate the sort of kick in the pants slash promotion slash interest right so. He's part of the educators group. Joy general. Oh sorry go ahead. No I was just saying he was saying to Jory he's part of our educators group. Yeah and I've always kind of preferred his write ups to others sorry not playing favorites with anybody on the in the ecosystem by just I rather like how he writes. So. I can reach out and just confirm that he's okay with that inform him of this promotion. Yeah. Ballin ballin tell him that we're forwarding his messages. The reason that came about has has to do with what we thought participation would look like. I was I was actually planning to create those until it was pointed out that someone already was so yay and then instead have it have it as a goal of mine to produce the preliminary materials like here's what's on the agenda reach out if you if you want anything and I really like that division of responsibility but but it also be nice to have. Both sides aware of it. I think that would be great I mean and I think also Richard to the extent that we can kind of make a connection for those who may be too busy to make it themselves is like this might affect you if you know you you're like you're building a tool that does X Y Z you know that would be because I think that's one of the critiques of following this materials like okay but how do I figure out which is relevant to me and which isn't so. Sure yeah I like that. It's a really good point like a like a different index into the proposals of like are you doing stuff with dates and times look here are you doing stuff with like air where you make errors or you like display them look here stuff like that seems really useful. Oh I make a lot of errors. I would just encourage don't you know you don't have to make an encyclopedia you know a few bullet points is is great just to focus on that it helps you and probably helps the reader too so and then we can blast that to a number a number of different ways so cool. All right well it is three o'clock may do a call for any other business with the 30 seconds we have remaining. Okay. Gavling us to conclusion very formal this group I'm going to stop.