Agenda for Oct 2nd, 2025

[nairnandu]

Here is the proposed agenda for the Interop team meeting on Oct 2nd, 2025

• Interop 2026 proposal review - champion selection
• Review open PRs
• Review test change proposals

[captainbrosset]

Proposed agenda item:

• Early close out of scope proposals like 1009, 1010, 1065?

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @stubbornella, @nairnandu, @jakearchibald, @YulunWu, @dandclark, @zcorpan, @foolip, @captainbrosset, @bkardell, @ChrisC, @jgraham, @chrishtr, @saronyitbarek, @tantek

Notes

• Interop 2026 proposal review - champion selection and early elimination
  • Team reviewed and responded/closed few proposals that did not seem to meet the min. requirements
  • Next steps: Include carryover evaluation proposals in the championing process and orgs to propose focus areas
• jakearchibald: quick check-in on ranking app (follow-up from last meeting)
  • stubbornella: few contradictions in the proposal. 1) not the sole way of ranking proposals 2) drawing the line would imply below the line is cut off. Also not clear what aspects of it would be public. Typically this late in the cycle, we dont change the process. We should consider this as a signal for the next cycle during the selection process discussion
  • jgraham: there is no change to the process for this year. We could use this for internal Interop team discussion. Similar to the Interop reactions, this won't be an official Interop artifact
  • foolip: From Google’s side, we would like to see signals like this
  • jakearchibald: did not intend to have a line be drawn for inclusion. Is the process restrictive to not allow new signals being raised? This would be an additional data point that can be provided when we respond to proposal authors
  • jgraham: We've always agreed not to agree on data sources or signals. People can present whatever they find useful, but there's no expectation that we have a single methodology for prioritising
  • foolip: +1 on giving more explanation to proposal authors. If we don't agree on shared signals, it would be difficult to provide feedback. Having the data without agreeing on how we use it seems useful for now
  • stubbornella: would devs see the result of the overall voting?
  • jakearchibald: not something we have a plan for, at the moment
  • stubbornella: if it's something that developers see, it changes our process significantly. Dont want the ecosystem to overly focus on this signal and not care about the State of surveys, MDN surveys etc. As examples - Apple ranks things that affect UX highly, Google prioritizes developer sentiment, Microsoft cares deeply about Accessibility. Each org has a different prioritization rubric.
  • jakearchibald: the reactions on github also give a similar signal (that is public)
  • stubbornella: dont think developers care about reactions as much as a ranked signal
  • foolip: dont think its reasonable to block this as an experiment. As long as we dont launch it as an Interop artifact, it does not impact the process
  • dandclark: agree. We should have the flexibility to use the signals we deem to be necessary
  • stubbornella: as long as developers can’t see the results of the overall developer voting, it should be okay. This carries a risk that this would give developers the impression that the ranking influences the process or inflates its perceived value
  • jakearchibald: the opaqueness of the process is what developers are most concerned with. I would encourage us to be more open about why we are not picking something. This would benefit the Interop process
  • stubbornella: the vast majority of proposals were not picked last year because there were no champions. Each org has its own nuanced prioritization process
  • foolip: how we respond to proposals that didn’t make it is a separate discussion. We have noted some of that in the process and each org has the flexibility to respond to proposals with insights on their roadmap or plans.
  • jakearchibald: if there is no consensus to put this forward as an Interop artifact, we can launch it as a Mozilla experiment.
• Review test change proposals
  • Review required for Update value keywords for CSS position-area following CSS WG resolution #1193, [css-anchor-position-1] Dropping anchor-position-multicol-nested-001.html #1153, Last successful anchor positioning tests and self alignment behavior for overflow #1100
  • [Anchor positioning] anchors-visible tests should probably not be in interop? #998 pending resolution of the CSSWG issue. Agenda+ for next meeting
• Review open PRs
  • Did not address in the meeting