W3C

Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference
21 Oct 2013

These minutes are public. Some links may be AB-only.

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Ralph Swick, Coralie Mercier, Jeff Jaffe, Charles McCathie Nevile, Steve Zilles
Regrets
Mike Champion
Chair
Steve Zilles
Scribe
Coralie Mercier

Contents


<koaliie> Previous (2013-10-07)

<koalie> scribe: Coralie

<koalie> scribenick: koalie

Confidentiality of IRC, editing and approval of minutes

SteveZ: The resolution was to release to public after 24 hours

cf. http://www.w3.org/2013/10/07-ab-minutes.html

[[

RESOLUTION: This TF agenda will go to CG process ML, and the minutes will be made public 24 hrs after they've been sent out unless there are objections.

]]

chaals:We will send minutes to all meeting participants for confirmation, right?

Close pending issues 2 and 37

<chaals> issue-2

<trackbot> issue-2 -- TR documents which are obsolete or have been "parked" or abandoned -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/2

chaals: I believe that these are resolved from long ago

chaals: issue-2: the process now says abandoned work should be republished as a NOTE

SteveZ: There are two kinds of "abandoned"; Group disappears or Group decides to abandon something by explicit action

SteveZ: In the case of the former it's effectively the team's job to get work published as a NOTE

<Ralph> [["ISSUE-2 is now addressed (in section 7.5 on notes)." -- Chaals in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/0033.html]

<Ralph> [[

<Ralph> If the Director closes a Working Group W3C must publish any unfinished specifications on the Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. If a Working group decides, or the Director requires the Working Group to discontinue work on a technical report before completion the Working Group should publish the document as a Working Group Note.

<Ralph> ]]

<Ralph> -- for issue-2

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-2 "TR documents which are obsolete or have been "parked" or abandoned" closed with resolution: No change. This is now addressed by section 7.5 on Working Group Notes.

<chaals> close issue-2

<trackbot> Closed issue-2.

issue-37?

<trackbot> issue-37 -- Drop the shoulds for general transitions -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/37

SteveZ: the proposed resolution is: No change
... anyone objects to "no change"?

[none]

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-37 "Drop the shoulds for general transitions" closed with resolution: No change.

Review pending issues 44-46

<chaals> issue-44

<trackbot> issue-44 -- Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/44

SteveZ: Any objections to closing this one?

[none]

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-44 "Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period" resolved: No change. This is already addressed by section 7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation.

<chaals> close issue-44

<trackbot> Closed issue-44.

<chaals> issue-45

<trackbot> issue-45 -- Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong? -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/45

chaals: I made a change [looks up]
... No, I didn't.

<koaliie> chaals' reply to Chris on 9-Oct

chaals: There is no request of new requirement.
... We've seen extreme cases but I think people now understand the problem of blindly following the requirement and letting publishing be endlessly delayed and in normal cases I don't think there's an issue.

<Ralph> [Ralph is comfortable with the text as is; SHOULD without further explanation of when a WG might not empty the errata queue]

SteveZ: Any objection to proposed resolution of: No change?

[none]

RESOLUTION: close issue-45 "Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong?" with resolution: No change

<chaals> close issue-45

<trackbot> Closed issue-45.

<chaals> issue-46?

<trackbot> issue-46 -- Publish and explain if 6 months pass with no change -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/46

<Ralph> [[

<Ralph> - I tentatively resolved ISSUE-46 by adopting the editorial split proposed

<Ralph> by Chris regarding when a revised Working Draft should be published, and

<Ralph> adding a should requirement that if nothing much changed the status

<Ralph> explains why not.

<Ralph> ]]

<Ralph> -- Chaals in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/0033.html

<Ralph> 7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts

chaals: I did make changes here; to add a requirement that a WG should explain why nothing has been published in the last 6 months

SteveZ: Has everyone had a chance to look and respond to issue-46?

SteveZ: You've indeed responded to Chris' suggestion

RESOLUTION: Close issue-46 "Publish and explain if 6 months pass with no change". The issue is now addressed in 7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts

<chaals> close issue-46

<trackbot> Closed issue-46.

Review pending issues 47 and 48

<Ralph> issue-47?

<trackbot> issue-47 -- What kind of changes can be "silently" made to a document in /TR -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/47

chaals: The process doesn't provide a formal review mechanism to determine if a change to a reference actually does affect conformance, and only the team has access to /TR

<Ralph> 7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a Recommendation

chaals: The second class used to say you can make editorial changes. I removed that and changed to "updates to references that do not affect content of specification"
... I changed the first class of changes too
... the reason for the change is that many links are included in the text content

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask if the Task Force really wants to speak to in situ changes vs minimal review changes and to object to the change "fixing broken style sheets"

Ralph: I agree with assertion that certain links appear in the text.
... I would suggest to go back and reinstate "broken link"

chaals: [???] it's possible that fixing a broken style sheet changes the text and I agree we shouldn't do this.

Ralph: fixing broken style sheets could be added under class 1
... but a link to external style sheet, or a link to an image leads to my point 2
... fixing most always leads to new content

chaals: Fixing a link to an image isn't a change to the text (although changing its alt value is)

<Ralph> Ralph: I support adding "broken style sheet" to class 1 but I object to dropping "broken links" from class 1

Ralph: I don't think broken links have been a problem in the past.

chaals: There isn't an exhaustive list of what you can change, there are examples.

Ralph: so Ivan asked the 'in situ' question. I believe the new process doesn't speak about 'in situ' changes
... I think this is at the discretion of the Director
... I think Ivan's question is well-meant but was addressed to the wrong body
... my interpretation on 7.6.2 in both versions, is that the actual issue is how much review of the changes should there be, not whether the document gets a new date or not.

SteveZ: I would agree with that.

chaals: I think the process sort of sets expectations. It is essentially a question of change control for things that are published as recommendations. Removing the Director's prerogative and providing clarity is the same thing in some sense
... I think it's a reasonable thing to have in the process
... I suggest to not resolve this this week
... I want to think about this further and write to Ian.

SteveZ: you also moved editorial changes from category 2 to Category 3, which is a good idea but requires a change that Ian objected to.

Chaals: Correct
... Hence let's postpone for another week.

SteveZ: There is a concern that there is no such thing as an editorial change.
... The way this is set up this is the WG that makes the change, not the Team.
... My concern is this is affecting getting the last call out

<Ralph> yes, issue-47 needs more discussion

Jeff: It doesn't work for me, we need to close this meeting with a resolution to send a last call
... I'm not sure why we would hold this especially given Ralph's comments

chaals: I would like to anticipate expected Last Call comments from AC and fix them before we go to last call

Jeff: That's a bureaucratic answer
... It shouldn't hold us up

SteveZ: You said we should revert to the original wording and we can raise an issue?

Jeff: Yes, escpecially for issues that aren't related to the waterfall approach of the process

SteveZ: I would like to revert to previous text and keep in mind we can use some clarification, so we can get something out the door This level of change is not going to be understood by the AC and is a distraction from the core changes.

chaals: I think this does need to be clarified
... I believe this can be dealt with in a week
... if we can't next week, let's make it a pending issue.
... I'm likely to object if you choose to revert this.

Jeff: Additional input: we told the AB that we're going to send this to the AC after this meeting and I'd like to do that; we need to discuss the draft letter to the AC there's 8 more minutes into this call.
... maybe we need another hour this week?

chaals: that's impossible for me

SteveZ: We have to do issue-48

Ralph: I think we have to revert. Hearing chaals' argument, I think chaals raises a new issue that I would like to think about more and discuss more.
... I think it's reasonable to discuss this issue during Last Call.

chaals: I can live with reverting now on the basis that I will raise the issues during last call

Ralph: Back to issue-47, Ivan's question remains.
... I want to propose that the answer be "no"

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to wonder if we've actually closed 47

SteveZ: correct, I'd agree with that
... I'm willing to write a note on how we got here and send for comment

Chaals: WFM

Jeff: WFM
... also, please look at the notes of the 14-Oct AB call, chaals made comments.

SteveZ: OK.
... I'd rather have you get the final text out, I'll draft the letter.

RESOLUTION: Close issue-47 "What kind of changes can be "silently" made to a document in /TR" with resolution to reply to Ivan's question that no, the process doesn't define this, and we revert to 2005 definition, and chaals will raise a separate issue.

issue-48?

<trackbot> issue-48 -- Status of this document requirements for Provisionally vs formally approved W3C Recommendations -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/48

chaals: I put a note https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/rev/563e36863a36

SteveZ: objection?

[none]

RESOLUTION: Close issue-48 "Status of this document requirements for Provisionally vs formally approved W3C Recommendations" with resolution that current draft includes two requirements for Status of Doc to be unique for each publication, and to identify whether a Rec is provisional or Formally Approved.

<chaals> close issue-48

<trackbot> Closed issue-48.

[Jeff leaves]

Determine if we're ready for Last Call

SteveZ: Are we ready for last call?

<Ralph> +1 to sending to Last Call

<Ralph> [anticipating that Chaals is likely to raise further issues for discussion during LC]

<jeff> [Steve, Chaals; based on the confusion I've seen in AC-forum; I also think that we need quite a good presentation at TPAC: origins, motivations, objectives - what is this new process?]

<inserted> scribenick: SteveZ

RESOLUTION: Revert the section on criteria for kinds of changes to the 2005 document text and publish this to the AC, Chairs and Public as a Last Call Draft

<koalie> scribenick: koalie

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to reply to Ivan on issue-47 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Reply to ivan on issue-47 [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-10-28].

<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to draft the cover letter that will do with Last Call draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-w3process-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Draft the cover letter that will do with last call draft [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-10-28].

SteveZ: Chaals, when can you have a draft ready?

Chaals: Between tonight and Wednesday.

SteveZ: We won't get to discuss issue-39 before next week, but this isn't part of the document

issue-39?

<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

[We don't have to discuss issue-39 today]

SteveZ: Let's close this meeting, we're 6 minutes overtime

SteveZ: Thanks everyone
... same US time next week.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: chaals to reply to Ivan on issue-47 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to draft the cover letter that will do with Last Call draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-w3process-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-10-23 21:26:18 $