12:36:38 RRSAgent has joined #agile 12:36:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-agile-irc 12:36:50 Steve: W3C Process Agility 12:37:02 Steve: specification development sometimes took a long time. Was the Process a problem? 12:37:21 Steve: we got in the order of 27 proposals, filtered down to 12 discussed in May 12:37:32 Steve: I'm here to report on the actions the AB thought appropriate 12:37:45 hsivonen has joined #agile 12:37:53 Steve: We found the Process was not most of the problem 12:38:08 Steve: methods could be implemented within the Process to make things more workable 12:38:23 Topic: Proposed Process Changes 12:38:51 Steve: Consider testing early in the process would be appropriate. 12:39:12 Steve: The Process is mostly for new people. To let them know what to think about what it takes to get to REC 12:39:49 Steve: tests are not the only way to show things are interoperable. Showing a feature is implemented in multiple implementations and the bug log on those features is reasonable is another way of demonstrating. 12:39:54 dbaron has joined #agile 12:39:58 Steve: the HTML WG might use that 12:40:21 ... There were a couple of things that seemed to be artificial restrictions that made things more complicated than necessary 12:40:49 ... The PR step caused delay and caused confusion with respect to referencing. 12:41:01 ... The idea is to clarify that a CR is pretty damn close to REC 12:41:28 ... CR is not perfect, but the final tune up to REC is painful and should be less 12:41:34 ... painful 12:42:02 ... Questions? 12:42:18 ... and feedback? Is this adequate? 12:42:24 koalie has joined #agile 12:42:46 dbaron: The CSS WG has the tendency bounce in and out of CR a lot 12:43:00 dbaron: it seems inconvenient to have the AC vote multiple times at CR 12:43:31 Steve: The proposal is the AC would vote once 12:43:58 Steve: with allowance for a requested vote on re-entry if felt necessary 12:45:05 David Filip: The testing recommendation is vague. I wonder if it should be normatively required? 12:45:09 cygri has joined #agile 12:45:20 Steve: what is required is at LC that the WG documents their approach. 12:45:29 ... and at CR they establish a plan 12:45:39 ... they are at those points not required to have tests 12:46:09 Steve: we want to encourage testing early, but we do not want to require it 12:46:26 Topic: Practices for Agility 12:46:46 Steve: A barrier to getting to LC is resolving dependencies with other WGs 12:47:02 ... the idea is to identify those during chartering 12:47:18 ... FPWDs are perhaps better developed in CGs 12:47:53 tpacbot has joined #agile 12:47:56 ... The W3C has four important events: FPWD (initial patent commitment), LC (more patents), CR (is done), REC (actually done) 12:48:07 ... We want to focus on those points as they seem to be gating things 12:48:51 ... We are working on making Editor Drafts (EDs) more discoverable 12:48:55 tpacbot has joined #agile 12:49:10 David Filip: if someone recharters between LC and something else? 12:49:13 Steve: should not matter 12:49:21 Steve: patents are attached to documents, not the charter 12:49:39 jcverdie has joined #agile 12:50:45 Mike: About making chartering more agile. Using a CG to produce a draft or starting with a SUBMISSION is better. Open ended discussion is painful. 12:51:00 s/Mike:/Mike Champion:/ 12:51:12 Steve: yes, that would avoid laywering and allow for technical discussion 12:51:26 Steve: documents have multiple audiences 12:51:36 Steve: implementors want latest; reviewers might want latest 12:51:51 Steve: TR/ only gives snapshots; make the EDs more accessible 12:52:03 ... by linking them from TR/ 12:52:36 Mike Champion: does it matter where they are published? 12:52:53 jeff has joined #agile 12:52:57 Steve: The Google/Bing result is terrible for non-TR/ links 12:53:25 dbaron: New engineers at browsers have implemented old versions of a spec 12:54:39 Steve: if you do testing early, you get specifications adopted faster 12:55:16 ... specification editors seem to appreciate this more as well as tests help them guide their writing and understanding 12:56:28 Steve shows http://test.csswg.org/annotations/css21/ 12:56:54 plinss has joined #agile 12:57:04 jalvinen has joined #agile 12:57:28 Steve: The CSS WG has an annotated version of CSS 2.1 that identifies the tests for it 12:57:57 Steve: and allows running to run tests for the browser used 12:58:23 ... it has section-by-section information as well 12:59:11 Steve: this is an example of integrating testing 12:59:30 Steve: as well as tests, integrating issues would be good too 12:59:44 jeff has joined #agile 13:01:09 Steve: both WebApps and CSS develop small specifications 13:01:11 jeff has joined #agile 13:01:22 Steve: modularizing also creates problems 13:01:28 Steve: such as making sure it's coherent 13:01:50 Topic: Are Supergroups the Solution or the Problem[?] 13:02:04 Steve: HTML, CSS, and WebApps are supergroups 13:02:12 Steve: patent commitment is made to the WG 13:02:30 Steve: protection is for all IPR of the WG 13:03:05 dbaron: I think the common case is that a Member refuses to grant IPR for a small work item 13:03:48 Steve: A perception is that these groups add work faster than they output it 13:04:07 [The scribe missed something above and therefore what dbaron said does not quite make sense in the context of the minutes. Apologies.] 13:04:17 jeff has joined #agile 13:04:50 What Steve said before was talk about small group spinoffs, and mention a motivation being that somebody whose input was important refused to join the supergroup for IPR reasons 13:04:56 Steve: Large groups create problems for AC review and there's a question about whether or not process is being made. 13:05:11 Topic: The Impact of the Paten[t] Policy 13:05:58 q+ to relate managing issues with modularization, supergroups vs group spawning, and charter agility 13:06:01 Steve: The Patent Policy (PP) is not the problem. 13:06:26 Zakim has joined #agile 13:06:26 Topic: What is the AB Missing? 13:07:14 Michael Cooper: I see the case for modularization, but it can be difficult to manage. The PFWG has a large problem with reviewing the incoming work. 13:07:25 Michael Cooper: The PFWG gets blown away by the snowball 13:08:05 Michael Cooper: The more you modularize the more you make it difficult to separate out IPR concerns. The opposite is group spawning, but then you miss having everyone in the same room for closely related specifications. 13:08:36 ... The charter has little wiggle room 13:09:00 ... The charter is too formal as it's likely to change in response to concerns 13:09:23 Mike Champion: The PP drives these suboptimal things 13:09:53 ... making it applicable to a specification rather than WG might make things more tangible 13:10:41 Steve: Maybe supergroups should give some kinds of heads up? [Did I get that right?] 13:10:54 Michael Coopier: We'd need to not miss those LCs then 13:11:20 Steve: I'm trying to see if there's a mechanism that works for both sides. I think it's important for WGs to have interaction with other WGs; either scheduled or unscheduled 13:12:00 Daniel Glazman: The HyperText Coordination Group is mostly useless. It's difficult to find the reasons why, but it does not work well. 13:12:27 Daniel Glazman: Make status reports and participation mandatory 13:12:57 [The scribe thinks that forcing people to do boring things is not going to work.] 13:13:22 Steve: We've been thinking about a notion of dashboards, to coordinate these kind of things 13:13:31 Daniel Glazman: They're not intrusive enough 13:13:50 Daniel Glazman: Email you're almost forced to read 13:14:05 [Scribe actively filters his email...] 13:14:42 s/Coopier/Cooper/ 13:15:24 Michael Cooper: The audience of who needs reviews needs to be public; important to get public engagement 13:15:56 David Baron: I took something different from what Daniel was saying than what he meant. 13:16:42 David Baron: The HyperText Coordination Groups (HGCs) does not work well because you pass information via liason and that does not work well 13:16:54 s/liason/liaison/ 13:17:18 Steve: An advantage of the HCG is that it is tracked 13:17:32 Henri Sivonen: I think one of the bugs with the HCG is that it's Member-confidential 13:17:40 David Baron: I think it's public now 13:17:52 [Multiple people confirm it's public.] 13:18:18 [Secret stuff is being said. I guess you had to be here.] 13:18:49 Steve: The secret stuff is a problem of the past. 13:19:15 Steve: I'd like to thank you all for your time 13:19:32 Michael Cooper: What is going to happen with the output here? 13:19:48 Steve: The AB is represented by three people here and the AC will look at this as well 13:19:52 Steve: it will not on the floor 13:19:59 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:19:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-agile-minutes.html annevk 13:20:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:23:31 yoshiaki has joined #agile 13:24:22 jalvinen has left #agile 13:25:36 tantek has joined #agile 13:29:45 MichaelC_ has joined #agile 13:30:03 MichaelC_ has left #agile 13:32:37 cygri has joined #agile 13:32:55 cygri has left #agile 13:33:01 koalie has left #agile 13:39:29 yoshiaki has joined #agile 13:46:18 jeff has joined #agile 14:07:07 tantek has joined #agile 14:19:32 tantek has joined #agile 14:28:45 yoshiaki has joined #agile 14:43:52 annevk has left #agile 14:45:22 jeff has joined #agile 14:57:09 yoshiaki has joined #agile 15:11:31 tantek has joined #agile 15:24:59 Zakim has left #agile 15:30:08 ted has left #agile 15:50:47 jeff has joined #agile 15:55:02 yoshiaki has joined #agile 16:08:31 yoshiaki has joined #agile 16:40:52 yoshiaki has joined #agile 17:21:25 tpacbot has joined #agile