Proposed charter for debugging subgroup #271
Conversation
subgroups/Debugging.md
Outdated
| - File formats and encodings for WebAssembly debug information | ||
| e.g. as custom sections in wasm executables or object files, | ||
| - Extensions to the WebAssembly text format for debug information | ||
| - Extensions or modifications to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the following bullet points be indented?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I think the intent was just to remove this bullet (as the following bullets are still "topics")
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great to me! Thanks for writing this up :)
One thing I am unsure of is that this mentions "browsers" a few times, and maybe that should just be "hosts"? Not clear to me whether we want to bake in Web/browser assumptions into the charter, when I could easily see Node.js and cretonne-based wasm runtimes wanting to leverage the things we will produce.
subgroups/Debugging.md
Outdated
| The Debugging Subgroup is a sub-organization of the | ||
| [WebAssembly Community Group](https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/) of the W3C. | ||
| As such, it is intended that its charter align with that of the CG. In particular, | ||
| the sections of the CG charter relating to Community and Business Group Process, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps link to these sections here?
subgroups/Debugging.md
Outdated
| The Debugging Subgroup is a sub-organization of the | ||
| [WebAssembly Community Group](https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/) of the W3C. | ||
| As such, it is intended that its charter align with that of the CG. In particular, | ||
| the sections of the CG charter relating to Community and Business Group Process, |
subgroups/Debugging.md
Outdated
| - File formats and encodings for WebAssembly debug information | ||
| e.g. as custom sections in wasm executables or object files, | ||
| - Extensions to the WebAssembly text format for debug information | ||
| - Extensions or modifications to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I think the intent was just to remove this bullet (as the following bullets are still "topics")
|
@jfbastien or @binji any thoughts or ideas you might want to address before tomorrow? |
|
I talked to @saambarati and we think this is fine. |
|
Agreed, looks good. |
|
Is it ok if we discuss it early in the meeting? i have a conflict today unfortunately.. |
|
Thanks everyone for your feedback. Since the last comments here, we've officially created the debugging subgroup, and it has git repo for artifacts such as meeting notes and documents (https://github.com/WebAssembly/debugging). I've gone ahead and added the charter in its current form to the repo, just so that the repo isn't empty. Alternatively we could make the canonical place for subgroup charters be centralized here, or somewhere else. I guess even if the charter lives in the debugging repo it's probably worth having a link somewhere people will look although I don't really know exactly where that would be. |
|
It looks like the other charters are their own repos under WebAssembly. cg-charter and wg-charter. Not sure if it makes sense to do the same, however. |
|
Ah I didn't even know those existed, maybe we should just put the subgroup charter in the cg-charter repo then. |
This is a draft for the charter of the proposed CG subgroup on debugging (discussed in https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings/blob/master/2018/CG-05-15.md). I intend to discuss it in the next CG meeting (and hopefully poll to create the subgroup) but I put this in the format of a PR to allow easy comments on the content of the charter, so we can discuss it prior to the live meeting. I tried to keep it as general as possible (so we can discuss any relevant debugging-related topic without worrying too much about the process or the charter) while still keeping it subordinate to the CG charter. One tricky piece about that is that there may end up being some debugging-related standard scoped to the web more broadly outside of just wasm, so the wasm subgroup may end up sending recommendations to that rather than the wasm WG if applicable.
But in any case, as far as anyone I talked to knows, subgroups like this are basically unprecedented in the context of W3C groups; so even though everyone is happy with the general idea, there might be feedback on the specifics. So I wanted to get this out for opinions before the meeting.