== Standards Position Discussion == ''by Tess O'Connor (@hober), Apple'' [https://tess.oconnor.cx/2020/11/WebKit Slide Deck] Let’s figure out how the WebKit community can come to consensus on web standards and communicate that consensus to the world & our colleagues from the other engines. ''hober:'' Coming to consensus and communicating that consensus externally ''hober:'' Right now, folks ask the community for positions on webkit-dev because there is no other place to ask ''hober:'' We should publish our positions on webkit.org ''hober:'' jond has a prototype, similar to Mozilla's standard's positions ''hober:'' Difference is that Mozilla is a single organization, but WebKit is multiple organizations, how do we come to consensus, and what happens if we cannot come to consensus? ''hober:'' Let's keep the process as light-weight as possible ''hober:'' We should create a new GitHub repository under WebKit, folks can request a position by filing an issue ''hober:'' Community can come to a consensus and make comments on the issue == Questions & Comments == ''noam:'' Can we have this a year ago? ''sam:'' Paragraph lines in the json is a problem with Mozilla, would probably be a problem for us too ''hober:'' There is pressure to keep it short, maybe we should use a different backing store ''smfr:'' Maybe link back to the GitHub issue? ''Eric Carlson:'' You skipped over what happens if we can't come to a consensus ''hober:'' We want to introduce as little process, not trying to describe a solution to that beforehand. ''rniwa:'' I think we've come to consensus about most of those requests, but how do we know that? How do we know enough time has passed for folks to comment? ''hober:'' We need to wait long enough, can also re-open issues if they're closed pre-maturely. People need to show up to have a conversation, none of this is set in stone ''hober:'' These wouldn't be unchangeable positions, ones that are issued can be revised ''rniwa:'' Email to say "we have reached a consensus, please comment within the next 5 business days to object" ''hober:'' Would make a lot of sense to do something like that ''John Wilander:'' Differentiating between standard and doing something ''hober:'' Differentiating between published standards, things being worked on by one individual or one organization ''rniwa:'' How do we handle when a standard substantially changes and our position changes ''hober:'' Communicating is easy, noticing might be hard. Answering that question probably requires vigilance ''rniwa:'' Maybe specify a date when the review happened ''noam:'' Will this be connected to MDN/can I use? ''hober:'' Existing feature status page is a source of information, but I don't think it makes sense sense to link to MDN ''Jen Simmons:'' Seems like developers won't really use standards positions or find them relevant ''noam:'' it has "under consideration" which has link to somewhere where it is considered ''hober:'' We do have under consideration on our status page ''rniwa:'' Concerned about unhelpful noise from developers ''hober:'' Inclined not to worry about this at the beginning ''smfr:'' Is it a non-goal to prepare for the scenario where different ports have different opinions? ''hober:'' Let's worry about that when we get to it ''hober:'' Maybe should reflect a per-port stance on the feature page?