21:37:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #process
21:37:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-irc
21:37:37 <dom> Meeting: TPAC Breakout: Revisiting How W3C creates standards
21:37:49 <dom> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Revisiting_how_W3C_creates_standards 
21:38:02 <stearns> stearns has joined #process
21:38:12 <mbodell> mbodell has joined #process
21:38:25 <chaals> chaals has joined #process
21:38:28 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #process
21:38:30 <olivier> olivier has joined #process
21:38:34 <chaals> scribe: Chaals
21:38:41 <szilles> szilles has joined #process
21:38:45 <chaals> Chair: Marcos, Kai
21:38:55 <florian> florian has joined #process
21:39:00 <arronei> arronei has joined #process
21:39:10 <plinss> plinss has joined #process
21:39:11 <chaals> KS: Marcos wanted to address specific proposals, I wanted to talk about experimental process.
21:39:19 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #process
21:39:20 <ArtB> ArtB has joined #process
21:39:22 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #process
21:39:22 <chaals> ... idea is to discuss and work out ideas.
21:39:26 <shawn> shawn has joined #process
21:39:42 <chaals> ... Would like to come away with suggestions for W3C about changes we should look at making.
21:39:57 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #process
21:39:57 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:39:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html ArtB
21:40:00 <chaals> SZ: As AB, ideas of what things need to be fixed even if you don't know how would be good.
21:40:04 <bryan> bryan has joined #process
21:40:14 <bryan> present+ Bryan_Sullivan
21:40:15 <chaals> KS: Right. start by identifying problems we have.
21:40:20 <chaals> present+ chaals
21:40:23 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
21:40:23 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #process
21:40:36 <kimberly> kimberly has joined #process
21:40:42 <matt> matt has joined #process
21:40:43 <Qiuling> Qiuling has joined #process
21:40:49 <chaals> ... would like to throw up points, without discussion.
21:41:34 <Judy> Judy has joined #process
21:41:36 <plinss> plinss has joined #process
21:41:44 <chaals> MC: questions - how do we go from idea to FPWD, how quickly, what are the implications?
21:42:28 <chaals> EE: In CSS people toss ideas on mailing list and come up with a public draft. Discussed in WG. If we want to tackle it, we take it on by resolution, and then go through our spec process.
21:42:35 <eliot_graff> eliot_graff has joined #process
21:42:40 <chaals> DG: More complex, because a new idea may not fit into charter.
21:43:02 <Josh_Soref> i|address specific goals|[ http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Revisiting_how_W3C_creates_standards ]|
21:43:05 <plinss> plinss has joined #process
21:43:12 <chaals> ... Not a theoretical list, it goes to lawyers for patent review.
21:43:14 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:43:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:43:17 <fantasai> more details on the csswg process - http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/inside-csswg/
21:43:19 <chaals> q+
21:43:22 <chaals> q+ olivier
21:43:36 <chaals> MC: what are negatives?
21:43:45 <chaals> ... rechartering is slow.
21:44:12 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #process
21:44:18 <Josh_Soref> q+ chaals 
21:44:20 <Josh_Soref> q_ olivier 
21:44:25 <Josh_Soref> s/q_ olivier//
21:44:28 <Josh_Soref> q+ olivier 
21:44:30 <Josh_Soref> ack chaals 
21:44:42 <fantasai> chaals: How do you get the people who are interested in/ should be working on an idea into the group?
21:44:43 <chaals> CMN: Finding and gathering interested parties.
21:44:54 <chaals> BS: How to get input of those who aren't all that interested.
21:44:59 <chaals> CMN: agree
21:45:02 <chaals> ack ol
21:45:10 <manyoung> manyoung has joined #process
21:45:16 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #process
21:45:34 <chaals> OT: Corrollary - charters include deliverables. That can be a constraint on what you *aim* to do.
21:45:54 <fantasai> OT talks about having a goal, deciding to change approach partway is incompat w/ charter
21:45:57 <Josh_Soref> i|address specific|[ http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Revisiting_how_W3C_creates_standards ]|
21:46:28 <chaals> SZ: Broad scope can also inhibit participation by introducing collateral IPR commitment
21:46:30 <tpod> tpod has joined #process
21:46:38 <chaals> MC: Are there examples?
21:46:45 <chaals> CMN: Geolocation
21:46:50 <chaals> MC: Web Notification.
21:47:01 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #process
21:47:19 <chaals> MC: There are community groups that can sidestep that issue.
21:47:42 <chaals> ... In spec development, how are drafts produced, how often do specs get published.
21:47:48 <chaals> ... This is data that could be useful.
21:47:56 <chaals> [publish as in "on TR"]
21:48:13 <chaals> ... How does this compare to the "live specification" model?
21:48:45 <chaals> ... There is review fatigue as a problem, and people latching on to dated versions that causes problems in the market by introducing legacy issues.
21:49:20 <chaals> ... Published snapshots are out of date.
21:50:05 <chaals> PC: Old folks remember that the reason we pubished early, published often was because groups were member only. That showed the public what was going on. Now nearly all groups are public, so think about TR page in context
21:50:16 <chaals> EE: At this point, TR page is not so appropriate.
21:50:47 <fantasai> s/At this/At that point, periodic snapshot approach was appropriate/
21:50:50 <chaals> IJ: There are several reasons. To have a centralised index where you can find what W3Cis doing. Another is heartbeat. Another was pressure to make progress
21:50:55 <fantasai> s/not so/maybe not so/
21:51:28 <bryan> q+
21:51:30 <chaals> s/point/now perhaps/
21:51:45 <dom> q+ shawn
21:51:48 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:51:48 <dom> ack bryan
21:52:06 <chaals> BS: Living document - size of spec has an impact on whether it ever finishes development.
21:52:07 <dom> q+ frederick
21:52:09 <shawn> q-
21:52:25 <chaals> ... We could have one entire W3C spec, but to ship we have to break things up.
21:52:55 <chaals> MC: What is the motivation of a last call, given taht there are lots.
21:53:08 <Josh_Soref> s/taht/that/
21:53:09 <chaals> SZ: My memory is that the term was copied from IETF.
21:53:14 <bryan> q-
21:53:38 <chaals> ... for people who were not so interested, was the notification that they had to review now or lose their chance.
21:53:55 <chaals> AvK: Process says group has addressed itw own concerns and other concerns already raised.
21:54:03 <chaals> PC: That is not true - that is CR.
21:54:23 <Josh_Soref> s/itw//its/
21:54:29 <Josh_Soref> s|//|/|
21:54:30 <chaals> ... chairs should ensure that the timeframe and length of LC is acceptable to identified liaisons
21:54:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:54:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:54:53 <chaals> SZ: Part of it was to keep a lid on further discussion within the WG.
21:55:08 <chaals> DG: Process mentions mandatory liaisons, for those include in charter.
21:55:15 <mbodell> From the process document: Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:... the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups;
21:55:22 <chaals> ... Issues don't have to be resolved, but you have to make the contact.
21:55:26 <chaals> ... Not always the case.
21:55:33 <Josh_Soref> s|s/itw/its/||
21:55:38 <Josh_Soref> s/itw/its/
21:55:48 <ArtB> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call Point #3 says "Indicate which dependencies with other groups the Working Group believes it has satisfied, and report which dependencies have not been satisfied." as an Entrance criteria
21:55:52 <dom> http://xkcd.com/386/
21:56:01 <szilles> szilles has joined #process
21:56:13 <chaals> SZ: Last call is too big a sledgehammer - too late in the process to get the inputs that need to happen earlier.
21:56:21 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:56:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:56:21 <chaals> ... It's often not last.
21:56:39 <chaals> MC: IPR exclusions is also an issue for last call.
21:57:10 <chaals> [reading the process document]
21:57:19 <chaals> AB: You need a last call to get to last call.
21:57:20 <olivier> q?
21:57:25 <olivier> q+ fantasai
21:57:25 <Josh_Soref> i|experimental process|Topic: Experimental Process|
21:57:37 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:57:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:57:38 <chaals> PC: Way that is done is a message to chair's list, saying they are ready to go to last call, and checking if that's OK.
21:57:50 <adrianba> q?
21:57:53 <dbaron> q+
21:57:59 <mbodell> q+ mbodell
21:58:17 <chaals> MC: We agree that IPR milestones are important?
21:58:24 <dom> ack frederick
21:58:26 <dom> q+ anne
21:58:31 <chaals> AvK: IPR is a problem - decade-old non recs are not covered by IPR
21:58:34 <chaals> q+ anne
21:58:56 <chaals> FH: We are conflating things. publication of WD is seperate from how to inform people of where you are up to.
21:59:23 <chaals> ... Understand concern that the editors' draft is really the latest one, and TR brings confusion. If you publish often enough does that help?
21:59:29 <chaals> MC: What if we are always in last call.
21:59:34 <chaals> q+ paul, Steve
21:59:34 <dom> ack fanta
22:00:25 <karl> karl has joined #process
22:00:36 <karl> q?
22:00:39 <chaals> EE: LC is overloaded. It is a communication with other WGs asking for feedback. It functions as a last call for comments before CR. It is also proposed edited CR.
22:00:56 <chaals> q+ to talk about where CR came from and how LC maybe clashes
22:01:12 <dsinger> q+
22:01:21 <dom> Zakim, close the queue
22:01:21 <Zakim> ok, dom, the speaker queue is closed
22:01:24 <chaals> ack db
22:02:34 <chaals> DB: Regarding communication to other working groups. Asking for comments, they come and comment, tends to lead to excess controversy. different sets of people converging on different opinions have to be reconciled, which doesn't work out well.
22:02:47 <chaals> ... You are better off with early comments and integrating them.
22:02:54 <dom> q?
22:02:56 <chaals> MC: Who are we writing the specs for?
22:02:59 <fjh> fjh has joined #process
22:03:04 <chaals> ... where are the implementors in the process.
22:03:09 <chaals> SH: Hopefully in the WG
22:03:14 <chaals> EE: or on the mailing list.
22:03:20 <chaals> MC: Does this work in the way they work?
22:03:22 <fjh> isn't there an informal process as well as the formal process?
22:03:28 <Josh_Soref> ack mb
22:03:29 <chaals> ack mb
22:04:01 <dsinger> q?
22:04:07 <chaals> MB: Last call is a specific case. there is a lot of value, but a lot of time and effort in getting to recommendation. There is confusion in people implementing some editors' draft, and not understanding the entire process.
22:04:23 <chaals> ... some users don't care about interop or testing, they just want to use a new feature they see.
22:04:30 <Josh_Soref> ack anne
22:04:31 <chaals> ack an
22:04:34 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:04:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html fjh
22:04:38 <SteveH_> q+
22:05:07 <chaals> AvK: Main benefit of standards is patent protection. We're not getting that because spec doesn't get to Rec. We're implementing working drafts and editors' drafts.
22:05:13 <rigo> rigo has joined #process
22:05:17 <jeff> jeff has joined #process
22:05:20 <rigo> q+
22:05:50 <chaals> ... Getting protection while drafts are not rec would be good. Community group has an approach to this, which could be helpful for WGs.
22:06:28 <dom> q?
22:06:50 <chaals> ... main value would be getting patent protection but we don't except in CGs.
22:07:16 <chaals> KS: we wanted to get a list of process problems. Should we keep going as we are?
22:07:32 <dom> q?
22:07:34 <Josh_Soref> ack paul
22:07:35 <chaals> zakim, open the q
22:07:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open the q', chaals
22:07:51 <jeff> since the q is closed, I suggest to Anne's point (>10years) people should come to the schedule delay breakout
22:07:55 <chaals> zakim, open the queue
22:07:55 <Zakim> ok, chaals, the speaker queue is open
22:08:00 <Josh_Soref> q- steve
22:08:01 <rigo> q?
22:08:04 <Josh_Soref> ack chaals 
22:08:04 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to talk about where CR came from and how LC maybe clashes
22:08:07 <dom> q+ rigo
22:08:23 <dom> q+ SteveH
22:08:57 <dbaron> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/inside-csswg/process may be of interest
22:09:18 <rigo> chaals talking about goals: shut the discussion off and move on
22:09:23 <dom> ack dsinger
22:09:33 <chaals> CMN: CR came later to the process. It opens a new review phase which breaks the assumption that last call closes off discusision
22:09:57 <jeff> q+
22:10:07 <chaals> DS: We have a process for "design, spec, implement, done" but what we are actually doing is more developing continuously and implementing in evolution.
22:10:28 <chaals> ... There is a tension because the process doesn't match the development model we have.
22:10:38 <Josh_Soref> q?
22:10:41 <Josh_Soref> ack rigo 
22:10:43 <dom> ack rigo
22:11:17 <chaals> MC: So lets pretend we have a living standard in HTML5. What does that mean?
22:11:24 <Josh_Soref> s/lets/let's/
22:11:36 <chaals> ... what are the issues with a living standard
22:11:37 <chaals> q+
22:11:50 <bryan> q+
22:11:55 <adrianba> q+
22:12:20 <szilles> Q+ to talk about messurement based stability indicators
22:12:23 <arronei> q+
22:12:25 <chaals> RW: Disadvantages of living standard was meant to be addressed by last call. In an argumentation, if you have a moving target it is hard to comment...
22:12:55 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes?
22:12:55 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'draft minutes'
22:13:03 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:13:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html dom
22:13:12 <dom> ack SteveH
22:13:15 <chaals> KS: Would like to pick out problems in current process first.
22:13:32 <richt> richt has joined #process
22:13:51 <chaals> SH: We need to evolve. When we began, there were de jure organisations. Now there are a lot of ad hoc spec development organisations. Our product dev cycles have changed, and stuff is updated live.
22:14:16 <chaals> ... people are throwing in incremental implementation of stuff. Standards are being developed in a whole new way.
22:14:44 <chaals> ... We need to modernise - community groups fits that pattern, where your IPR commitment gets ratcheted up as you go.
22:14:57 <ArtB> q+ Paul
22:15:02 <chaals> ... to give incremental protection matching the implementation. But only from the contributor.
22:15:20 <chaals> ... New groups should start as community groups and then feed things into Rec track.
22:15:47 <chaals> AvK: If I spec something that someone else started, doesn't that mean there is no protection? Whose contribution is it?
22:15:47 <dom> q?
22:15:55 <dom> ack jeff
22:16:10 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Screw Threads and Ink Blots
22:16:43 <chaals> JJ: Ink blots reflects what happens. Big problem is that some of our stakeholders need screw-threads - old fashioned stable specs.
22:16:56 <karl> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:16:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html karl
22:16:59 <chaals> ... problem is it can take a long time - we need to figure out how to get those things done faster.
22:17:18 <chaals> ... we have to be agile, but there is a concept of a release still.
22:17:19 <Josh_Soref> q+ anne
22:17:42 <chaals> ... Linux kernel moves in versions - an inkblot environment but there are stakeholders there who need a degree of regularity.
22:17:51 <arronei> q-
22:18:03 <chaals> MC: They are putting the responsibilityon us. They haveto be part of the stabilisation process.
22:18:13 <chaals> AvK: Why do we adapt to them, rather than vice versa
22:18:21 <chaals> JJ: They are all us.
22:18:29 <Josh_Soref> chaals: I was going to slightly contradict anna
22:18:32 <dom> ack chaals
22:18:38 <Josh_Soref> s/anna/anne/
22:18:40 <dbaron> chaals: I'll slightly contradict Anne and follow up on Jeff.
22:18:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and slightly support jeff
22:18:54 <Josh_Soref> .. and to a certain extent, we want to make a contract
22:19:04 <Josh_Soref> ... without an open ended ability to change things at will
22:19:11 <Josh_Soref> ... but we want to be able to make the web work
22:19:21 <Josh_Soref> ... we want to reserve the right to fix things
22:19:21 <rigo> chaals: in development the inkblot dev is what we want. We get paid by customers for fixed term stuff. We do not want to make an open ended commitment on changes at will
22:19:31 <Josh_Soref> ... but we don't want to let you add new requirements
22:19:40 <Josh_Soref> ... How do we do business between these two groups
22:19:43 <dom> q?
22:19:52 <Josh_Soref> ... our customer's perception of how the web works
22:20:02 <Josh_Soref> ... and how to integrate things into a very slow changing step wise system
22:20:20 <Josh_Soref> ... There's a tension between what customers want
22:20:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and wanting to work across that divide
22:20:39 <Josh_Soref> ... it's difficult to integrate a continuous development process
22:20:45 <Josh_Soref> ... with a stepwise marketplace
22:20:52 <bryan> specs that do not stabilize (are too large, or partially implemented, or never fully supported) are a bane to interoperability and complicate attempts to move to the "next gen" of the feature (there is only one generation). As Jeff said in the plenary, we need clean/small/orthogonal specs.
22:20:52 <dom> ack bryan
22:21:31 <chaals> ack adr
22:21:43 <chaals> ABate: Agree with chaals.
22:22:01 <tpod> tpod has joined #process
22:22:20 <chaals> ... Jeff said majority of people ship with some degree of regularity - cycle speed is different. Nobody ships random nightlies - not all checkins are equal.
22:22:32 <Josh_Soref> [ laughter from a former employee of some other company ]
22:23:10 <chaals> ... Three types of changes happen to specs. We can't tell which is which in advance. There are errata. There are big fixes where the design needs to be changed - that we can look at before we do it. And there are new features.
22:23:26 <chaals> ... Confusion is that people can't tell in a changing document which changes are of which kind.
22:23:41 <chaals> ack sz
22:23:41 <Zakim> szilles, you wanted to talk about messurement based stability indicators
22:24:24 <Josh_Soref> q+ Josh_Soref  to note that i need to know when i should give feedback, and roughly a priority order of potentially all specs that might interest me
22:24:32 <chaals> SZ: Wanted to talk about stability. A key outcome of discussion about defining stability. Formal labels don't match stability, or what actually happens. Talking about a metric-based key to stability.
22:24:42 <chaals> ... when you are making a ship decision you look at rate of bug insertion.
22:25:02 <chaals> [chaals thinks that opens too quickly ot gaming, in a competitive environment]
22:25:17 <chaals> ... Think we need to find better measures to indicate the stability of something.
22:25:19 <Josh_Soref> s/ot/to/
22:25:31 <chaals> ack pa
22:25:51 <chaals> PC: We confuse purpose of spec with anne's point about getting pieces to recommendation.
22:26:01 <tpod> Time check: 5 minutes
22:26:02 <chaals> ... we want to deliver something developers can use - the large integrated spec view.
22:26:18 <chaals> ... but that makes it hard to finish, because some parts are stable, others are not.
22:26:47 <chaals> ... We really want HTML5 as a monolith, *and* as a broken up set of small specs.
22:27:15 <chaals> ... Give patent protection on the 17 pieces that are done, show some more things coming, and also "here is how it all hangs together".
22:27:15 <dom> (this sounds like the Banach–Tarski paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox)
22:27:24 <chaals> ... Think we need to figure out how to make that hang together.
22:27:39 <dom> q?
22:27:39 <chaals> ... A single large document is not the only thing we should progress.
22:27:45 <chaals> ack an
22:27:48 <dom> ack anne
22:28:06 <rigo> q?
22:28:12 <rigo> q+
22:28:28 <chaals> AvK: Similar points. We have had problems with WHATWG standard knowing what changes happen and why. Most changes link to bug report explaining the change.
22:28:56 <chaals> ... Spec has annotation about where it is up to in implementation.
22:29:05 <chaals> MC: Good stability point, shows who passed tests.
22:29:14 <chaals> AvK: Not perfect, is good proof of concept.
22:29:24 <chaals> q+ tantek
22:29:38 <rigo> ack ri
22:29:45 <chaals> Tantek: TIME.
22:29:50 <chaals> MC: How do we continue?
22:30:03 <chaals> SZ: Proposal from AB is to create a community group specifically on process.
22:30:09 <richt> q- tantek
22:30:15 <chaals> ... sounds like a good idea to pursue that.
22:30:29 <Josh_Soref> ack me
22:30:29 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that i need to know when i should give feedback, and roughly a priority order of potentially all specs that might interest me
22:30:30 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:30:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html chaals
22:30:53 <karl> RRSAgent, make logs public
22:32:13 <Josh_Soref> I need to know when i should give feedback, and roughly a priority order of potentially all specs that might interest me
22:32:18 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make minutes
22:32:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-process-minutes.html Josh_Soref
22:32:34 <fjh> fjh has joined #process
22:36:58 <plinss> plinss has joined #process
22:38:50 <arronei> arronei has joined #process
22:40:13 <adrianba> adrianba has left #process
22:40:23 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #process
22:41:04 <abarsto> abarsto has joined #process
22:42:46 <olivier>  /leave
22:42:52 <olivier> gah
22:42:55 <olivier> olivier has left #process
22:45:58 <dom> dom has left #process
22:46:09 <Josh_Soref> s| /leave||
22:46:13 <Josh_Soref> s|gah||
22:47:03 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #process
22:49:23 <szilles> szilles has joined #process
22:50:53 <karl> karl has joined #process
22:53:11 <karl> karl has left #process
22:59:28 <Judy> Judy has joined #process
23:05:17 <chaals> chaals has left #process
23:21:50 <rigo> rigo has joined #process
23:24:34 <rigo> rigo has left #process
23:30:42 <szilles> szilles has joined #process
23:39:44 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #process
23:40:45 <shawn> shawn has joined #process
23:41:13 <shawn> shawn has left #process
23:42:29 <Marcos> Marcos has joined #process
23:43:37 <arronei> arronei has joined #process
23:43:55 <matt> matt has left #process
23:51:45 <abarsto> abarsto has joined #process
23:52:09 <ArtB> ArtB has left #process
23:53:13 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #process
23:59:55 <richt> richt has joined #process