The particular example in mind was implementing the opt-out mechanism for CCPA compliance by next Wednesday. I strongly believe the governance system was critical in making sure that deadline was met and that the implemented solution was actually the right one.
-
-
Replying to @tobie @RickByers and
It would be interesting to interview other players in the chromium field to see how they feel about the governance model, and if they’d be more keen to contribute if the governance model was different.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tobie @RickByers and
Actually, now that I think a bit more about it, there was a lot of uncertainty around the privacy and security requirements that chromium had around the sensor work I did for Intel a few years ago, that a better governance system would have clarified upfront.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
More predictability around the handling of privacy and security is a great example! That's also one of the top ~3 concerns I hear from Google chromium engineers too. I personally think its worth investing more in that area for all chromium stakeholders.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RickByers @tobie and
I hear this also from folks who depend on Chromium to build their browsers: They end up side-stepping Blink’s governance by turning prefs off in their products, or using PING as a proxy to put the break on features (or ask Mozilla folks to jointly voice concerns).
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @marcosc @RickByers and
These are product choices. If the flags aren't flexible enough, that's one thing. That flags need flipping is simply the result of disagreement, which is both healthy and rational.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Completely agree - flags are great! My impression of what's not so great is not really having much say in engine direction (and having to fight proxy battles for/against features through W3C or other means instead of via blink-dev).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcosc @RickByers and
Fighting *against* features is implicitly asking to edit the choices of other embedders. That's the work of flags in a well-run project pre-consensus.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
That would be true if what Blink shipped wasn't also seen as "The Web Platform"
. Therein lies the problem: in that by flipping flags one can be painted "anti-Web", when some features perhaps should never been implemented in the first place (a failure of governance).2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @marcosc @slightlylate and
Hence then proxy wars get fought in other contexts (W3C, WHATWG, Mozilla standards-positions, WICG, etc.) in an attempt to kill off features that only Google wants but everyone else strongly disagrees with (e.g., most of Fugu).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"most everyone" must be carefully defined so as not to include Intel, MSFT, and all the other companies working with us in Fugu and/or flipping the flags in their products (e.g. Samsung) 
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Sorry, yes - most everyone meaning Apple and Mozilla and some other smaller embedders. Coincidentally, Apple and Mozilla both holding equal stake in preventing specs from becoming web standards, and hence part of what we (Moz, Apple, Google) collectively call The Web Platform.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.