is there mention of the TC39 calendar?

[michaelficarra]

I don't see a link to the TC39 Events calendar or any information on how to manage events.

[ljharb]

Is the calendar meant to be public?

[michaelficarra]

@tc39/chairs Can we make sure the TC39 Events calendar contains no non-public information so we can publicise the address? To my knowledge, other than plenary and incubator calls, the other events on there are all open attendance, but really non-discoverable.

[ctcpip]

few issues:

• there are other items on the calendar that are not open attendance
• exposes email addresses and possibly other PII of meeting attendees
• historical entries that may contain private info and/or links that shouldn't be made public

seems like the only viable option for a public calendar would be to create one. which is not a bad idea, but would introduce additional burden and parity issues

[michaelficarra]

Okay, that's fine. Can the chairs create this public calendar and move/recreate the events that should be public? We can publicise it on the Reflector and at the following plenary before we start treating it as a source of truth.

[ctcpip]

the chair group discussed this and we will create a public calendar for open events only (such as JS outreach groups meetings)

• the existing private calendar will remain
• public meetings will move to the public calendar
• public meetings will be removed from the private calendar, after a deprecation period, during which there will be duplicate/overlap of the items for a short period of time to allow for a smoother transition for people to subscribe to the public calendar so their meetings don't disappear out of the blue

questions, comments, concerns?

[ljharb]

Can someone enumerate which meetings we’d want moved, just to get a sense of the scope?

[michaelficarra]

• editor call
• community events colocated with plenary
• plenary (sans any further meeting info)
• outreach calls, such as the tooling, educators, and frameworks calls

[ljharb]

Sounds good. @ctcpip i'm happy to create the calendar and move the events, if that would be helpful.

[ctcpip]

Alright, so the calendar exists. I added an item to the next plenary for a short discussion to raise awareness and get agreement on what belongs (or perhaps what does NOT belong) on the public calendar. I don't think the suggestions above are controversial, but folks may have thoughts on it.

Importantly, we need to be cognizant about:

• direct invites to the meetings
  • people may not want their info exposed
• links to notes, etc that are meant to be private but are available on the public internet if you have the URL

@ljharb Please note my comment above. We don't want to remove anything from the existing calendar yet. We should suggest a deprecation period at plenary and get consensus on that.

Anything we add right now, and in the days leading up to plenary, should be the low hanging fruit, and we should be careful not to add invitees without their permission, for the reasons above.

For anything not already considered public, we should get buy-in from the (meeting) groups themselves -- they should be the ones to decide whether they want their meeting on the public calendar.

calendar id	37a2107dff15193b42fffa091bc999165695d43b7e4f43b65eab093da2757a3a@group.calendar.google.com
url	https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=37a2107dff15193b42fffa091bc999165695d43b7e4f43b65eab093da2757a3a%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FChicago
iCal format	https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/37a2107dff15193b42fffa091bc999165695d43b7e4f43b65eab093da2757a3a%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics

[jmdyck]

The 'public url' appears to point to a calendar that is not public. ("Events from one or more calendars could not be shown here because you do not have the permission to view them.")

[ctcpip]

@jmdyck we hadn't made it officially public (clicked the checkbox) as there was no need to do so immediately, but I went ahead and did it, so should be viewable now. (though it is empty)

[jmdyck]

Yup, I can see it now, thanks.

[ctcpip]

Alright, after doing some experimentation to confirm calendar behavior, here's what I propose moving forward:

• we do NOT move anything off the existing private calendar
• for meetings that we want to be public, we will:
  • disable the See guest list setting so individual email addresses are not exposed
  • update the description and meeting/location to remove any information that is not public. (at the beginning of the description, we should clearly state that the meeting appears in the public calendar, so do not add anything expected to be private to the description.)
  • add the public calendar to the invite list
  • update the meeting only for the current and future occurrences so that the previous meeting info is intact and doesn't disappear

this avoids:

• most of the extra work with managing two calendars
• no need for aforementioned deprecation period as things (would have) moved from private to public calendar
• delegates and IEs do not need to subscribe to both calendars -- they can continue using only the private calendar
• there is still only one Source of Truth™️ for every meeting, and if a meeting is moved, it will be reflected on both calendars

the only downsides are:

• can no longer see who is on the invite list, even on the private calendar
• meeting description and/or location no longer contains previous information

those seem like acceptable tradeoffs. the invite list isn't especially useful, and for public meetings, the meeting description/location has a low chance of having necessitated anything being removed.

thoughts?

[ljharb]

I think we should have the invite lists shown by default, but made hidden for any event upon request by a participant. Seeing the invite list is incredibly valuable and useful, and I don't think email addresses are a secret thing for most people (but obviously they are for some).