Suggest the WICG as a way to propose new features. #245
Conversation
It can provide initial discussion of a feature and dispatch between the many available repositories on which one could file the issue. Inspired by https://twitter.com/troglotit/status/1109577257738227712.
|
It makes more sense to me to fix this sentence to generalize whatwg/html to "the standard's issue tracker". And maybe say "if you're not sure what standard your idea impacts, use whatwg/meta. If your idea is outside the scope of WHATWG standards entirely, use WICG." I think it's generally valuable to take things that impact WHATWG standards directly to the WHATWG community that is working on that standard, instead of to a Discourse forum which has uneven WHATWG-community participation. |
|
I like "the standard's issue tracker" and will make that change later today. I think it's often difficult for people outside our community to know which standard their thing is supposed to affect, so I'll try to word something that suggests that either whatwg/meta or the WICG can be used to dispatch problem statements to particular specifications? |
|
@domenic: "If your idea is outside the scope of WHATWG standards entirely, use WICG." — That's not immediately obvious if you don't spend enough time around here, IMO. |
This point in the process is too early to guess that the solution will end up in HTML.
|
Thinking about this more, it doesn't make sense to try to guess the standard the solution is eventually going to land in, at a point where we're insisting that people should only have a problem statement and not a proposed solution. |
Fixes #37. This will be stronger if we also fix the FAQ entry per whatwg/whatwg.org#245 (comment).
|
I think in a lot of cases people do know what standard something would land in. E.g. if they're suggesting a new way of fetching things, they might know the fetch standard is the place to be. Or if they're talking about addressing a deficiency with a HTML tag, they might know HTML is the place to be. If they're concerned about a lack of capabilities of notifications, it makes sense to file the issue on whatwg/notifications. Etc. |
|
I'd suggest that if people aren't spending enough time around WHATWG to know that their proposal belongs there, it's not a failure mode to suggest going to WICG - they'd be steered back in the end if WHATWG is more appropriate. WICG is intended to be a reasonable home for incubation of new features for anything, whether they end up in W3C or not. I agree with @domenic that when people know where a feature would land, proposing it there (in whatwg/notifications or wherever) is probably the shortest path to success, of course. |
|
Done, thanks. |
|
I feel like this has been overtaken by https://whatwg.org/stages ; WDYT? |
|
Although maybe we should update the FAQ to account for that. |
The WICG can provide initial discussion of a feature and dispatch between the many
available repositories on which one could file the issue.
Inspired by https://twitter.com/troglotit/status/1109577257738227712.
May help with @gsnedders' whatwg/participate.whatwg.org#37 but doesn't fix it.