Add notes from WG 2025-11-12 (#1950)

Author: dschuff

main/2025/WG-11-12.md

@@ -27,10 +27,84 @@ and invited [guests](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#GeneralMeetings).
 
 ## Meeting Notes
 
-To be filled in after the meeting.
-
 ### Attendees
 
+- Thomas Lively
+- Zalim Bashorov
+- Derek Schuff
+- Ms2ger
+- Luke Wagner
+- Ryan Hunt
+
+
 ### Proposals and discussions
 
+RH: Charter renewal
+
+We should add the new specs from 3.0 to the charter (code metadata, legacy EH),
+especially the legacy EH, since that’s critical for browsers.
+TC39 has Annex B for browser-specific stuff
+
+For EH, we’d want to make the doc not be specific to EH, in case we ever have other legacy features.
+
+RH: Was talking with Luke about WASI; we don’t necessarily have to do anything here, but useful to think about what to do in the long term. SHould they become another deliverable?
+
+LW: when we presented to the CG, most seemed to agree that WASI belongs in a separate working group that doesn’t have browsers, since browsers have a different API surface.
+
+RH: Is there a timeline on when that might happen?
+
+LW: probably some time next year. If there are developments with browsers and the Component Model,
+that would be a good time to separate them. So far everything is phase 1
+WRT the charter, there is a clean difference between the CM and WASI
+
+DS: do we want to update the list of feature deliverables?
+
+RH: we’ve shipped most of those
+
+LW: stack switching, GC, etc are in progress. We can add JIT
+
+TL: should we remove things that are shipped?
+
+RH: JS interop should probably be added
+
+RH: practically how the renewal affects me is that the charter is submitted for wider review and our AC rep asks me if it makes sense. If we have any weird features, then someone might object, but i dont’ anticipate a problem. With the CM, there was questions about overlap with web components. So people do read it.
+
+So, let’s remove merged features, add JIT, reword the threads item to include GC, (GC and type system), catch-all for JS interop, broaden SIMD to numerics.
+Let’s broaden the list of specifications to include legacy and metadata
+
+DS: should we change any wording in section 4 about PRs? Even if we don’t plan to do PR. we have the same goals.
+
+RH: it would technically make the process stricter. Since PR is after CR. Changing it to CR would more accurately reflect our process and seems unlikely there would be objections.
+
+TL: what does “expected” mean? Should we just make it “must”? Later in the paragraph we say the spec “must” have an open test suite. Intentional? Maybe we just change it to “must”
+
+RH: it also doesn’t say “browser” leaving the door open to changing the CG process.
+
+DS: it also says “web platform tests”
+
+RH: for external organizations, we should add WHATWG, since we’re  integrating with ESM/HTML, and maybe streams in the future. In memory control we’ve been talking about BYOB readable streams.
+
+DS: speaking of memory control, should we add that to the list of features?
+
+RH: Should Binaryen be mentioned?
+
+DS: currently it’s technically part of the CG rather than the WG. We’ve discussed whether we want to move it (although it seems likely that if it were to be moved it would go out of the W3C).
+
+RH: yeah I don’t see a big potential for problems, just wondering
+
+DS: it was kind of a free-for-all in the early days, putting software projects in the CG was convenient for collaboration, and the goal was to inform the CG decisions. We did move out the inactive ones several years ago.
+
+Let’s vote to do the following:
+
+ - Remove already-merged features from the feature list
+ - Add to the list of features: JIT support, reword the threads item to mention GC, add a general item for GC and type system, add an item for JS interop, broaden the SIMD to numerics, and add memory management.
+ - Add legacy specs and metadata spec to the list of specification deliverables.
+ - In section 4, change the mention of Proposed Recommendation to be “Candidate Recommendation” and change “expected to” to “must”.
+ - Add WHATWG to the list of external organizations.
+
+DS: any objection to that list?
+
+No objections, consensus.
+
+
 ### Closure