Proposed changes to the blink launch process mechanics.

[Johnny Stenback]

Hey API owners,

TL;DR: I'm proposing we eliminate the Google docs version of the "Intent to *" templates and make chromestatus generate proper "Intent to *" messages.

After talking with a few API owners in person I took on a task to help reduce the burden on those who push new Blink features through the launch process and increase the likelihood of folks using the right templates for their "Intent to *" messages (which is increasingly rarely the case today). I wrote up a short doc explaining the issue and proposing a change. I have preliminary changes in a local copy of chromestatus that shows this is totally doable.

Please feel free to give feedback either in this thread or in the doc itself. If there's generally agreement that this is a direction we want to move in then I'll clean up my changes and work with the chromestatus folks to make this happen.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ko5on9kbl7LJzUNMH8nfojY62ZRgmO0fahRwuORdYkQ/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,

Johnny

- jstenback (he/him)

[oj...@google.com]

<3 This seems like a strict improvement in every way.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-d...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to blink-api-ow...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CACZRgz625nCBMGV7OyddLCwLYQtnhC_vc-HWOg1_6M2RGr5FgA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel Bratell]

I forgot to answer here, but my reaction was the same as Ojan's. There are probably details to get right but there is a lot of room for making things easier and more obvious.

/Daniel

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CANMdWTuJ89EqtF2csaSpEhRF6nBN22DvJkYRShdy4tot6%3DBz0A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

/* Opera Software, Linköping, Sweden: CET (UTC+1) */

[Philip Jägenstedt]

This sounds great, thanks for pushing this Johnny!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/op.zv50gdb4rbppqq%40cicero2.linkoping.osa.

[Chris Harrelson]

Agreed! This is definitely a big improvement over what we use today.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAARdPYcQp8qkC7GpizRNWRXNJQ76MuB69h9-Wun6YD-GTF7-Fg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rick Byers]

+Eric and Joe since I'm sure they'll also have thoughts

I agree this is a big improvement, thanks Johnny!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CA%2BN6QZuhthCWG1f29fPNJkHDdwzjTtMs%2BCj9KaKXYeoKZvXZOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Medley]

I understand wanting to reduce work. There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of this proposal. Chrome Status is not a duplicate of the intent form.

Intents are for other chromium implementors. Chrome status entries are for web developers. 

To put it another way, much of what's in an intent is about what's going to change in the Chrome code base. Chrome status tells developers what they can or must change in their scripts and apps. While there is overlap, it's not uncommon for intents contain information that's not really relevant to using the proposed feature. 

Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jme...@google.com | 816-678-7195

If an API's not documented it doesn't exist.