Amphtml: AMP Email Process

[dmitriid]

There’s still one question bothering me about AMP Email that never was answered (well, among others, but still) in #13597 :

@cramforce mentioned that the whole process around AMP Email is very well lit. And yet, the actual process is not explained anywhere.

So what is the process and how any other non-tech issues can be addressed now that the whole discussion is locked? Thank you.

[choumx]

You're welcome to have a meta discussion about AMPHTML email in this issue, or in the mailing list thread I referenced in the I2I: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/amphtml-discuss/VpUpX1mo-gY

We recommend having nuanced discourse in our weekly meeting. This is clearly described in the issue you linked above -- https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomment-367510614:

This is our open source project and it has an established path towards resolving tough questions through our weekly public meetings.

Our process also includes private pre-meetings if would prefer that over public meetings.

We also have other discussion channels, detailed here: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#ongoing-participation

[dmitriid]

@choumx

Please stop with the mailing list. _It's dead_. There are, on average, 2 messages per day in that mailing list. It has been clearly stated that GitHub issues is _the preferred_ way to discuss things.

We recommend having nuanced discourse in our weekly meeting. This is clearly described in the issue you linked above

The weekly meeting is a _design meeting_. Where people discuss technical implementations. As evidenced by #13457, this issue and #13603, no one knows what _the actual process_ really is. All public discussions so far have been either marked as off-topic, moved to a dead mailing list, or locked down.

The whole of #13597 is basically about process, and yet there's still no clear answer except "we have a weekly meeting".

The only "other ways to participate" are:

• A Slack channel (does the Slack channel have the answers to #13597?)
• A single active working group which is a "News Publisher Working Group"

And all this still doesn't answer the questions about _process_. At this point I sound like a broken record, as this question has been in so many shapes and form asked and not answered so many times:

If there is a "well lit" process for feedback about the idea itself, what is it?

Any "live meetings in person" are prone to Chinese whispers. If there is a clear, established process with clear established answers to all the questions and concerns raised, there should be a clear, precise, non-contradictory document describing it. Not, "weekly public meetings" and "private pre-meetings".

[dmitriid]

As a follow-up question: would you be willing to provide such a document with answers to questions raised in #13597?

[cramforce]

@dmitriid I know it is unsatisfactory, but this is the place to discuss the AMP implementation. I understand it is an unsatisfactory answer given your expectation, but it is the answer. I appreciate the process input on how AMP introduces new feature, but it is off-topic here. We have had good experiences with it, but will revisit based on this experiences. We will try to find a venue to discuss whether "dynamic email with or without AMP is a good idea".

We'll report back here on that last question within a week.

[dmitriid]

@cramforce

I know it is unsatisfactory, but this is the place to discuss the AMP implementation.

Once again this is contradictory. See intro to #13597 and bullet points (5) and (6) there, and also https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomment-367512424

I appreciate the process input on how AMP introduces new feature, but it is off-topic here.

Where. Is. It. Not. Offtopic? It's like talking to a wall at this point.

If there is a "well lit" process for feedback about the idea itself, what is it?

We'll report back here on that last question within a week.

Thank you!

[choumx]

Seems like we disagree about what qualifies as a "process" but these lightweight reviews have worked well for us so far and we've had contributors from many different companies across different locales attend, propose features, and give feedback. As AMP matures, I can see this evolving into a more involved, multi-stage system that you may be more familiar with. In the meantime, you're welcome to give any feedback in the aforementioned channels.

[dmitriid]

Seems like we disagree about what qualifies as a "process"

Of course. Everyone disagrees with you, as evidenced by the discussions you ended up calling "off-topic" and locking.

these lightweight reviews have worked well for us so far and we've had contributors from many different companies across different locales attend, propose features, and give feedback

Because basically the only semblance of a process is the "Intent to implement" which is: "Here's a bunch of features we have, we'll not even have a meaningful discussion on whether or not they are good, affect users, are a good idea overall, overlap any initiatives by standards bodies etc. etc. etc."

you're welcome to give any feedback in the aforementioned channels.

The most meaningful feedback with multiple questions has been locked down. However, @cramforce promised answers within a week, so I guess there's no other choice but to wait and see what comes out of that and #13603

[dmitriid]

@cramforce

I think that the conversation itself is important and I'm always available on the internets.

Also @cramforce:

close this issue and lock it for further comments. (#13623)
I locked this conversation since it was linked to on the web (#13597)

Can you or @choumx explain how is it that you're "interested" in the discussion?

Clarification: no answers were given in #13597, and the issue was locked. Obviously people will ask the same questions, as they are extremely relevant. So they did, #13623. Once again, no answers are given, the issue is locked.

How are we supposed to have discussion with you?

[dmitriid]

@cramforce commented on this issue 13 days ago:

We'll report back here on that last question within a week.

[dmitriid]

@cramforce commented on Feb 22 (26 days ago):

We'll report back here on that last question within a week.

[dmitriid]

@cramforce commented on Feb 22 (52 days ago):

We'll report back here on that last question within a week.

Meanwhile there are great essays on how "the project is well lit" and how "we must have empathy".

[choumx]

Unfortunately, this thread hasn't contained any meaningful engagement on the proposal itself and we're clearly talking past one another. Repeating questions over "process" and "how to have a discussion" rather than actually discussing the merits of the project at hand, and off-topic jabs are unproductive and, in my opinion, shows bad faith. Engaging in this manner is very unlikely to elicit a response from an AMP community member.

The PR for the official spec is out (#14532) and pending the addressing of some feedback from our public design review this past week (#14181). Concrete, technical questions or concerns can be discussed there.

I'll take one more opportunity to highlight our code of conduct:

Don’t be mean or rude.
...
Derailing, tone arguments and otherwise playing on people's desires to be nice are not welcome, especially in discussions about violations to this code of conduct.
Please avoid unstructured critique.
Likewise, any spamming, trolling, flaming, baiting or other attention-stealing behaviour is not welcome.

I'm sorry that this is the outcome of our discussion. We remain open to engage in technical discussions in good faith. Best wishes.

[ampprojectbot]

This issue seems to be in Pending Triage for awhile. Please triage this to an appropriate milestone.