Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
02 Dec 2013

<scribe> scribe: Coralie

<scribe> scribenick: koalie

<koaliie> Previous (2013-11-25)

<trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2013

conflict on 9-Dec with AB call spanning CHAP7 slot

SteveZ: there's at least a half hour of the AB agenda (9-Dec) that is a summary of the CHAP7 Tf
... So I propose to not hold a CHAP7 TF meeting next week
... thoughts?

Jeff: Lot of input especially in the last few days
... also need to factor in the vacation time in December

RESOLUTION: No CHAP7 call on 9-Dec, next call on 16-Dec.

SteveZ: the 16th would be the last phone call we can effectively hold

Jeff: I'll already be on vacation, FYI
... Maybe I can join, maybe I'll reply in e-mail

[fantasai joins]

SteveZ: Chaals, update on where the next draft is?
... and secondly, thoughts on full process with chapter 7 in it?

chaals: Next draft so far has some typos fixed...
... I need to rename LCCR
... then need to look at resolutions

SteveZ: Can we get an updated draft prior to 9-Dec AB teleconference?

chaals: Yes

issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some organizational issues and readability suffers

SteveZ: I'm looking for the issue around restructuring of table of content
... maybe it wasn't raised as an issue

issue-59

<trackbot> issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some organizational issues and readability suffers -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/59

chaals: I disagreed only with trying to separate rec track and note track
... in practice they entertwine
... when I first suggested we introduce notes, I think it makes sense to explain notes

fantasai: There are documents which are meant to be published as notes
... and others which end up published as notes
... For me they are distinct
... It would help to make that clear

chaals: I think we agree
... There are things that are on the note track, others on rec track that end up on the note track, etc.
... I don't disagree with the substance
... I prefer one section over two, to do part of the explanation

SteveZ: We can talk about next steps and describe one is the note track

fantasai: We should be clear about what it takes to go to note. Boxes around "next steps" makes sense to me.

chaals: I think we agree fundamentally. I can implement your proposal modulo not keeping them separated.

<chaals> [proposed resolution: Chaals should implement Fantasai's proposal, but not have the Note/Rec track discussion separate from the explanation of the difference]

RESOLUTION: Chaals to implement Fantasai's proposal, but not have the Note/Rec track discussion separate from the explanation of the difference

<Ralph> reopen issue-59

<trackbot> Re-opened issue-59.

fantasai co-editor of the Process Document

fantasai: Someone in that thread said I should be an editor of the process
... so if you want me there, let me know

chaasls: Do you want to edit the process?

fantasai: Yes

SteveZ: Any objection, chaals, to having fantasai as co-editor?

chaals: No

SteveZ: Any objection?

[none]

RESOLUTION: fantasai joins chaals as co-editor of the Process Document

[fantasai's first request is to re-indent everything]

[chaals and fantasai will talk offline]

Ralph: Please, collaborate in such a way to make source diffs readable

issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard

issue-54?

<trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54

<Ralph> Ralph would be happy to close issue-54 as "not at this time"

Chaals: my personal preference is to kill it, but I can easily live with it as "raised"

Jeff: There aren't a multitude of solutions.
... My understdanding is there is more pushback than support

fantasai: There are people who feel strongly about changing, I'd suggest to defer for now

chaals: what fantasai said

Jeff: I don't understand why we're leaving it open
... there was no consensus for changing it

SteveZ: I wanted to close it on procedural ground that it's too big a change at this stage
... implementing it seemed too difficult a task to take on
... I tend to agree with fantasai this is something we should ask the AB about

Mike: We can't finish if we can not resolve simple yes/no issues

SteveZ: This isn't the case.
... Quick strawpoll:
... those who wish to close the issue

Mike: close
... it can be brought up again
... we are not near consensus on it yet

<chaals> [close it...]

<jeff> [close it]

fantasai: I think it's fine to close, but I think it's going to come up again

Ralph: I'm not in favour of making a change at this time,
... nor in living it in raised state
... I support to close it
... or mark it as "postpone"

Jeff: Close it, as I wrote in IRC.

RESOLUTION: Close issue-54 as there was no consensus for changing Recommendation to Standard, acknowledging it will be raised again.

close issue-54

<trackbot> Closed issue-54.

issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section?

issue-51?

<trackbot> issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51

SteveZ: I believe this is in the hand of the editor
... by separate email chaals agreed to take the action to implement issue-51

chaals: Correct.

Ralph: Now that fantasai is an editor, maybe she wants to draft some text.

chaals: I'll shift the issue as "pending review" when there is something to review.

issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead

issue-50?

<trackbot> issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50

SteveZ: I'd propose to close when issue-51 is closed.

chaals: It may or may not involve a Director's call. I think we already resolved this.

SteveZ: It was my belief that this was a misunderstanding of how the new process was intended to work
... any objection to closing issue-50?

Jeff: I don't object to closing issue-50, but I think there is a larger issue at play here
... which is that Art doesn't believe combining LC and CR is efficient
... quite the opposite
... does someone need to sit down with Art and getting him on board?

SteveZ: I'm willing to do that.

Jeff: Thank you.

chaals: Art is happy to raise issues and I'm happy to talk to him. I agree, we need to answer the questions. +1 to someone talking to Art.
... Art is going to keep raising questions. And we need to answer till he runs out of questions

<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to get in touch with Art about issue-50 and check assessment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Get in touch with art about issue-50 and check assessment [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-09].

SteveZ: My proposal it to close issue-50 in favour of issue-51
... since that's the one that will deal with the details that should do that
... Does anyone object?

[no objection]

close issue-50

<trackbot> Closed issue-50.

<Ralph> issue-50: SteveZ believes the resolution of issue-51 will cover the concern of issue-50

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-50 If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead.

RESOLUTION: Close issue-50 as the resolution of issue-51 will cover the concern of issue-50. Steve Zilles will get in touch with Art (who raised issue-50) to convince him that combining LC and CR is efficient.

issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured?

issue-52?

<trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52

SteveZ: I was to draft some text...

fantasai: I wrote on that issue as well as a few others just now
... We need best practices in some cases. I don't think that having a single label is the best, the new process gives you flexibility
... depending on what you're looking at, you're looking at different levels of "complete"
... and what is it that is complete, the design? etc. So a single label won't work.

chaals: I agree with fantasai

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to tend to agree with Elika

Ralph: I too agree with fantasai
... it's too soon to propose a single label
... I continue to look forward to reading a new proposal from fantasai on how to do that

SteveZ: I understand what fantasai said
... maybe with her help, I can go back to David Singer (who raised the issue)
... as label depends on audience.

Ralph: I'm hoping that your draft text for best practices will include bits on fine-grain

<Ralph> Ralph: I think an overall label of "completeness" may be unnecessary if Fantasai produces the best practices I hope she will write on how editors document the state of specific sections of the document

SteveZ: The one thing I see missing is the point that some groups only want to review once when it's done,
... How do we signal, how do we get to those groups?
... recognising that "done" may be different from one group to another.

Mike: I think it's a cultural change that we have to make.
... If you want to make an impact on a spec, you have to review earlier.

SteveZ: I think we're still in the process of debugging the horizontal process review.

Ralph: I'm sympathetic to Mike's concerns, but I interpret the problem differently.
... When editors document the status of specific sections, the aggregation suggests a state of the whole document.
... If all the sections about which a reviewer cares are documented as "done" while other sections are documented as not quite done, they can do their review
... The magic for me lies in better documentation of individual pieces of a document.
... It will still be the case that some will start their review too late.
... I don't think Mike's problem is solvable with an overall status bit.

Mike: Yes. These reviews have to be encouraged earlier in the process.
... It's a good thing to have a label to encourage wide review

SteveZ: Besides a page for editors, we need a page for reviewers, to understand how to do this, and point from every spec
... How to use the signals within a document.
... We need to do a document for both editors, and reviewers.
... I guess we need to leave this issue open until we see a draft from fantasai
... But there is consensus to drop "single" in "single signal"
... Objection?

Mike: What would replace "single"?

SteveZ: Marking each section with a status

Mike: I'd agree.

issue-52: SteveZ: There is consensus to drop "single" in "single signal"

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-52 How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured?.

issue-70 -- Usage of "normative" needs clarification

SteveZ: [reads from Art's issue raising] "To facilitate the reach and accessibility of this document (especially for non-English speakers) I think the term `normative` - when not used as a qualifier for "reference" i.e. "normative reference" - should be eliminated (or if it really can't be eliminated then define it)."
... He suggests to change "non-normative section" into "informative section", which makes sense to me.
... The terminology isn't used as it should be

Ralph: I think he's making a different point
... the word "normative" is problematic and we should restrict its use to "normative reference"
... and he proposes alternatives for all the cases when we use "normative" in a different context.
... I'm not opposed to the suggestion

SteveZ: Some of the corrections seemed worthwhile.
... His second suggestion is to "Define "normative reference" and point to the new policy."

Jeff: Could someone do some archeology on why we used that phrase in the first place?

SteveZ: I can send a note to Ian saying Art suggested the following changes, do you know any reason why they are not worth doing?

<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to write to Ian about issue-70 and if he knows any reason why Art's suggestions are not worth doing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Write to ian about issue-70 and if he knows any reason why art's suggestions are not worth doing [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-09].

issue-70: see SteveZ's action-24

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-70 Usage of "normative" needs clarification.

<Ralph> [for example, now that Art calls my attention to it the sentence "A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of normative guidelines ..." seems to be saying something important and the word "normative" appears to be carrying a lot of weight. I support investigating whether there is a more clear way to say the important point here.]

Next meeting, next steps

Stevez: [agrees with Jeff] Goal would be to have a new draft chapter 7 by mid to late January 2014

Jeff: Looking at calendar, at the early March AB f2f, we need to look at a new draft.

SteveZ: Next meeting: 16-Dec
... Thanks all.