Session Start: Mon Nov 25 10:57:12 2013
Session Ident: #w3process
[11:02] <koaliie> present+ Ralph
[11:02] <koaliie> present+ Coralie
[11:02] <koaliie> present+ Jeff
[11:02] <koaliie> present+ SteveZ
[11:03] <koaliie> meeting: Chapter 7 Revisions
[11:03] <Ralph> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Nov/0047.html
[11:03] <koalie> -> https://www.w3.org/2013/11/15-w3process-minutes.html Previous meeting (2013-11-15)
[11:04] <koaliie> scribenick: koaliie
[11:05] <koaliie> chair: SteveZ
[11:05] <koaliie> SteveZ: agenda had open issues 39 and 51
[11:05] <koaliie> ... and raised issues
[11:05] <koaliie> ... 50, 52 and 54
[11:07] <koaliie> [missing chaals and Mike Champion]
[11:07] <koaliie> SteveZ: Any other issues need to be discussed?
[11:07] <koaliie> Jeff: yes
[11:07] <jeff> [missing Zakim]
[11:07] <Ralph> [missing RRSAgent]
[11:08] <koaliie> Jeff: The deadline for AC comments on the document
[11:08] <koaliie> ... is 27 November
[11:08] <koaliie> ... Around that, I think a couple of questions arise
[11:08] <koaliie> ... Most WGs @@ cadence associated with deadlines, discussions
[11:09] <koaliie> ... Should an e-mail go out with thank you note for issues
[11:09] <koaliie> ... and telling we're not accepting other issues?
[11:09] <koaliie> ... or should be send a reminder e-mail?
[11:09] <koaliie> ... Wondering about proper etiquette.
[11:09] <koaliie> ... Another point
[11:09] <koaliie> ... Discussion last week and on ac-forum. In most cases, other than AB members, no one has raised formal issues
[11:10] <koaliie> ... We raise formal issues on people's behalf
[11:10] <koaliie> ... E-mail racap'ing the issues?
[11:10] <koaliie> SteveZ: A combination of what you said
[11:10] <koaliie> ... on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and list the issues we recognise
[11:11] <koaliie> ... based on the comments we saw on ac-forum and w3process lists
[11:11] <koaliie> ... and use that as a trigger for people to say we missed such and such.
[11:11] <koaliie> Jeff: Thanks, that's responsive to my points.
[11:11] <koaliie> SteveZ: The normal procedure is we begin work on the day of the deadline and comments dribble in
[11:11] <koaliie> ... they will be most likely processable
[11:12] <koaliie> ... we're moving toward consensus.
[11:12] <koaliie> ... except around "wide consensus"
[11:12] <koaliie> ... although we've made progress.
[11:13] <koaliie> ACTION: SteveZ to draft such a message
[11:13] <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Draft such a message [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
[11:13] <jeff> s/wide consensus/wide review/
[11:14] <koaliie> action-19: on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and list the issues we recognise based on the comments we saw on ac-forum and w3process lists, and use that as a trigger for people to say we missed such and such.
[11:14] <trackbot> Notes added to action-19 Draft such a message.
[11:14] <koaliie> SteveZ: I had exchanges with with Larry Masinter
[11:15] <koaliie> SteveZ: I seem to recall Ralph took an action relevant to issue-39
[11:15] <koaliie> issue-39?
[11:15] <trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open
[11:15] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39
[11:15] <koaliie> Ralph: We had a breakout but I didn't draft a message to the Chairs
[11:15] <Ralph> action-15?
[11:15] <trackbot> action-15 -- Ralph Swick to Draft message to chairs asking them to think about and prepare to share thoughts on the transition plan -- due 2013-11-04 -- OPEN
[11:15] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/15
[11:15] <koaliie> ... that was action-15
[11:16] <Ralph> ISSUE-39: TPAC breakout discussion record http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html#item02
[11:16] <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-39 Managing the transition to a new TR cycle.
[11:16] <koaliie> Ralph: I'm happy to put out a proposal
[11:17] <koaliie> issue-51?
[11:17] <trackbot> issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section? -- open
[11:17] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51
[11:17] <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2013/11/15-w3process-minutes.html Friday 15-Nov AB Process Revision discussion record
[11:18] <Ralph> action: Ralph draft an updated proposal for issue-39
[11:18] <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Draft an updated proposal for issue-39 [on Ralph Swick - due 2013-12-02].
[11:19] <koaliie> [whether or not to action someone who isn't on the call?]
[11:19] <koaliie> ACTION: SteveZ to ping chaals on text for issue-51
[11:19] <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Ping chaals on text for issue-51 [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
[11:20] <koaliie> SteveZ: I don't think there is controversy on that one, we just need to see text to resolve it.
[11:20] <koaliie> Steve: Now on the raised issues.
[11:20] <koaliie> ... Art raised issue-55
[11:20] <jeff> q+
[11:20] <koaliie> issue-55?
[11:20] <trackbot> issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings -- raised
[11:20] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55
[11:20] <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised raised [not yet open] issues
[11:21] <koaliie> SteveZ: I'd put this in the "not a process issue" category, certainly not an issue for Chapter 7
[11:21] <jeff> q-
[11:21] <koaliie> Ralph: I agree
[11:21] <koaliie> ... I also doubt it's a process issue.
[11:21] <koaliie> ... But the community can followup on it.
[11:21] <koaliie> SteveZ: I'll notify Art.
[11:22] <koaliie> Jeff: Art raised this as a W3C Process issue
[11:22] <koaliie> Ralph: I recommend Steve writes to Chaals that this isn't a process issue
[11:22] <koaliie> Jeff: And you can copy Art
[11:23] <koaliie> SteveZ: I'll do that
[11:23] <koaliie> issue-50?
[11:23] <trackbot> issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead -- raised
[11:23] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50
[11:23] <koaliie> SteveZ: I believe that this was partly a misunderstanding
[11:24] <koaliie> ... our intent was that wide review was done prior to CR. A second piece is we clarified that we do not require a Director's call for changes to CR
[11:24] <koaliie> ... so, my proposal is to switch this from raised to open
[11:24] <koaliie> ... and copy the text from our discussion with a proposal that this would be closed by clarifying the repeated entry to CR step in the process.
[11:25] <koaliie> Ralph: It's in scope for this TF, I accept it as an open issue
[11:25] <koaliie> ... I'm not sure we have final text from the Friday discussion, but we're close
[11:26] <Ralph> action-17?
[11:26] <trackbot> action-17 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Update the draft to make a distinction between publication and process state changes -- due 2013-11-22 -- OPEN
[11:26] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/17
[11:26] <koaliie> SteveZ: Chaals took an action to update the draft and make a distinction between publication and process state changes
[11:26] <koaliie> SteveZ: The piece that wasn't entirely resolved in my mind, was whether a substantive change required some of the steps to be repeated
[11:26] <koaliie> ... I believe it was clear nobody thought it was necessarily necessary to have a full Director's call
[11:27] <koaliie> ... the presumption is there could be, but it's likely to be given without a Director's call
[11:27] <koaliie> Ralph: That rings a bell
[11:27] <koaliie> ... The process document itself should not require the Director @@@
[11:28] <koaliie> issue-54?
[11:28] <trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard -- raised
[11:28] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
[11:28] <koaliie> SteveZ: Change rec to standard
[11:28] <koaliie> ... I would open this and my personal feeling is that based on discussion, it's too big a deal to do with just a revision of Chapter 7
[11:28] <Ralph> open issue-54
[11:28] <koaliie> ... and that it would slow down the process of getting the chapter 7 out
[11:28] <Ralph> issue-54 opened
[11:29] <koaliie> ... I think we have mixed whether this would be a good thing or not
[11:29] <koaliie> ... and more discussion is needed, on a broader basis,
[11:29] <koaliie> s/basis,/basis.
[11:29] <koaliie> Jeff: The reason we focused on chapter 7 is that we were interested in a more agile process
[11:29] <koaliie> ... There are other issues that we can't deliver on yet
[11:30] <koaliie> ... it's consistent with that to table this issue, as it doesn't do anything for agility.
[11:30] <koaliie> s/table/defer/
[11:30] <koaliie> SteveZ: Right
[11:30] <koaliie> ... any disagreement?
[11:30] <koaliie> [none]
[11:30] <koaliie> SteveZ: I'll leave is open for one more meeting and then we can close it and we can see what the propose closure is.
[11:30] <koaliie> q?
[11:31] <koaliie> issue-52?
[11:31] <trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured? -- raised
[11:31] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
[11:31] <koaliie> SteveZ: We reached some kind of consensus by establishing there might be a label that optionally can be used by a WG
[11:31] <Ralph> reopen issue-52
[11:31] <trackbot> Re-opened issue-52.
[11:32] <koaliie> ... to indicate they've reached a certain level of completeness
[11:32] <koaliie> ... to encourage review
[11:32] <koaliie> ... I'm not attached to a particular label.
[11:32] <koaliie> SteveZ: There should be an explicit requirement for a section or something, where the WG would put in what they expect is suitable in terms of review for this particular draft.
[11:33] <Ralph> +1
[11:33] <jeff> q+
[11:33] <koaliie> Ralph: I'd like to see Elika's proposed layout, I was impressed
[11:34] <Ralph> s/see Elika's proposed/see a proposal from Elika for a/
[11:34] <Ralph> s/impressed/impressed by her proposal for the Status bits
[11:34] <koaliie> Jeff: I don't have other concerns
[11:34] <koaliie> ... If we're going to be creating this new marker,
[11:35] <koaliie> ... I think we'll need verbiage in the section describing wide review
[11:35] <koaliie> ... to say what we mean by the marker(s)
[11:35] <koaliie> ... The marker is like a best practice; you can achieve wide review without the marker
[11:35] <koaliie> ... and that may not be enough, even without the marker
[11:36] <koaliie> SteveZ: By saying it's an optional signal to tell reviewers they believe the document is complete, that would be sufficient
[11:37] <koaliie> SteveZ: [looks for suggestions from Larry Masinter]
[11:37] <Ralph> zakim, this is chap7
[11:37] <Zakim> sorry, Ralph, I do not see a conference named 'chap7' in progress or scheduled at this time
[11:37] <Ralph> zakim, this is team_jeff
[11:37] <Zakim> ok, Ralph; that matches Team_JEFF()11:00AM
[11:38] <Ralph> zakim, who's on the phone?
[11:38] <Zakim> On the phone I see Ralph, Coralie, Jeff, Steve
[11:38] <Zakim> +fantasai
[11:39] <koaliie> [fantasai joins]
[11:39] <Ralph> [Elika joins]
[11:39] <Ralph> s/[Elika joins]//
[11:40] <koaliie> issue-54?
[11:40] <trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard -- open
[11:40] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
[11:41] <koaliie> SteveZ: It was suggested that if you [fantasai] could make available a pointer to the draft section, then I can add to the text
[11:41] <koaliie> ... for the issue list
[11:41] <koaliie> fantasai: OK
[11:42] <koaliie> SteveZ: Thank you
[11:42] <koaliie> ... Ralph made the point that's clearer to people what's being discussed. that's for issue-51
[11:43] <koaliie> SteveZ: Back to Larry Masinter's comments
[11:43] <koaliie> ... he raised 5 points
[11:43] <koaliie> ... for wide-review, he would like to make sure we reach out to other SDOs
[11:43] <koaliie> ... in the definition of wide review
[11:44] <koaliie> Jeff: At the charter level we ensure horizontal review and so on
[11:45] <koaliie> ... as a friendly amendment, "relevant" is in the eye of the beholder
[11:45] <jeff> s/,/ since/
[11:45] <koaliie> SteveZ: I take the point that this can go in the charter and list dependencies
[11:45] <jeff> s/beholder/beholder, we should anchor "relevant" in the groups listed in the charter/
[11:45] <koaliie> SteveZ: At the end of section 7.2,
[11:46] <koaliie> ... there is something about editor's draft. He was concerned about the word "publish" wrt editor's drafts
[11:46] <koaliie> ... and would prefer "make available"
[11:46] <koaliie> ... on the basis that he wanted to distinguish the WG work from the editor's work.
[11:47] <koaliie> ... That's generally not a problem except in one WG I am aware of.
[11:47] <koaliie> fantasai: I think that once we have a better publication process, this becomes less of an issue because we'll have live drafts on TR and editor's drafts won't be necessary
[11:48] <koaliie> ... at that point, given the WG will be able to push things out, the copy on /TR will be what everyone can refer to.
[11:49] <koaliie> ... once /TR is updatable easily, the editor's draft becomes scratch space and won't be relevant to most people.
[11:49] <Ralph> +1 to Elika's framing of frequently-updated /TR and editor's draft == scratch space for collaboration
[11:49] <koaliie> fantasai: "make available" instead of "publish" sounds good.
[11:50] <fantasai> (note, that was steve's suggestion)
[11:51] <SteveZ> Larry Masinter Would like, in Implementation Considerations, an assertion that the implementations implement the current specification.
[11:52] <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/LC-TRprocess-20131024#implementation-experience 7.2.3 Implementation Experience
[11:53] <koaliie> SteveZ: if I accept Jeff's point that dependencies is where liaising with other SDOs is mentioned,
[11:53] <koaliie> ... is that generic enough?
[11:55] <SteveZ> Larry suggest in  Wide Review, change "review by the general public" to  “review by the general public, especially the sub-communities thereof that are affected by this specification.”
[11:55] <koaliie> ack ralph
[11:55] <jeff> q+
[11:55] <koaliie> Ralph: about implementation experience, I speculated that Larry may be looking at second bullet of @@@@
[11:56] <koaliie> SteveZ: Yes, I think that's the point.
[11:56] <Ralph> s/@@@@/7.2.3
[11:56] <koaliie> Ralph: And if so, that's an easy edit to make.
[11:56] <koaliie> Jeff: One more point
[11:56] <Ralph> [e.g. "are there independent interoperable implementations /+of the current specification+/?" ]
[11:57] <koaliie> Jeff: The other wide review best practice (with other W3C WGs), should we harmonise other best practices?
[11:58] <koaliie> SteveZ: We need text for functionally complete
[11:59] <koaliie> ... I'll write the text so people can see it.
[11:59] <koaliie> ... The other thing is I'd like to require a review consideration piece which the WG will use to identify which in a particular WD is important to review
[11:59] <koaliie> ... functionally complete is what you would put in that section
[11:59] <koaliie> SteveZ: Thanks all.
[12:00] <Zakim> -Jeff
[12:00] <Zakim> -fantasai
[12:00] <Zakim> -Ralph
[12:00] <Zakim> -Steve
[12:00] <koaliie> Zakim, drop me
[12:00] <Zakim> sorry, koaliie, I do not see a party named 'koaliie'
[12:00] <Zakim> -Coralie
[12:00] <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has ended
[12:00] <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Coralie, Jeff, Steve, fantasai