15:37:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:37:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/06-w3process-irc
15:37:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:37:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:37:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:37:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:37:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:37:12 <trackbot> Date: 06 January 2014
15:37:16 <koalie> Zakim, this will be 24277
15:37:16 <Zakim> ok, koalie; I see Team_JEFF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 23 minutes
15:37:22 <koalie> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0001.html
15:37:25 <koalie> chair: SteveZ
15:37:58 <koalie> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html Previous (2013-12-16)
15:38:03 <koalie> scribe: Coralie
15:38:06 <koalie> scribenick: koalie
15:38:25 <koalie> s/<koalie> ->/<koaliie> ->/G
15:53:46 <koalie> agenda+ Propose closing  issue 39
15:53:55 <koalie> agenda+ Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization
15:54:09 <koalie> agenda+ Discuss raised issues
15:54:15 <koalie> agenda+ Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review
16:00:32 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
16:00:44 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #w3process
16:01:10 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
16:01:17 <jeff> zakim, code?
16:01:17 <Zakim> the conference code is 24277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), jeff
16:01:34 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has now started
16:01:40 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:01:57 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
16:02:02 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:02:36 <Zakim> +koalie
16:02:44 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone
16:02:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', SteveZ
16:02:59 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, Mike_Champion, SteveZ, koalie
16:03:12 <koalie> regrets: Ralph
16:03:52 <Zakim> +fantasai
16:06:31 <SteveZ> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0001.html
16:06:54 <koalie> koalie has changed the topic to: 6-Jan CHAP7 meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0001.html
16:06:57 <jeff> q+
16:06:58 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 1
16:06:59 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Propose closing  issue 39" taken up [from koalie]
16:07:08 <koalie> issue-39?
16:07:08 <trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open
16:07:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39
16:07:12 <koalie> ack jeff
16:07:43 <koalie> Jeff: During the break, I had an opportunity to do a fairly extensive review of the revisions; sent comments to chaals
16:08:47 <koalie> ... In terms of closing issue-39, I don't recall if I've reviewed it or it it's something else
16:09:09 <koalie> SteveZ: The text was published on 2-Dec
16:09:10 <SteveZ> Text for issue 39: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html
16:09:46 <koalie> SteveZ: People seemed to be happy with it when we discussed it at the 16-Dec call
16:10:04 <koalie> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html#item01 16-Dec Call discussion of issue-39
16:11:35 <koalie> Mike: I'm OK, it's what we agreed on last time we talked.
16:11:40 <jeff> q+
16:12:07 <koalie> ack jeff
16:12:39 <koalie> Jeff: On re-reading the new process, I learned that when we enter candidate rec, there's an AC review
16:13:01 <koalie> ... I was surprised because you don't say that anywhere
16:13:31 <koalie> ... There's a section 7.4 called Candidate Recommendation
16:14:01 <koalie> ... in it it says AC reps can appeal, but nowhere does it say there is a review.
16:14:28 <koalie> SteveZ: OK.
16:14:44 <koalie> ... I thought it did at one time; I tend to agree, looking at it now.
16:15:13 <koalie> Jeff: I have a variety of questions
16:15:33 <koalie> ... including one with starting the review as candidate rec
16:15:49 <koalie> ... we should state it, if we want the AC review to start at Candidate Rec
16:15:56 <koalie> s/review as/review at/
16:16:22 <koalie> Jeff: "provisional approval" is mentioned, but what are the conditions? when does that happen?
16:17:08 <koalie> SteveZ: It doesn't even say who makes the request for provisiional approval
16:18:15 <koalie> Jeff: Further, it should be implicit that a group should close things, namely AC review, in order to publish under the new process.
16:18:39 <koalie> ... So I don't know if that belongs to issue-39
16:18:52 <koalie> ... but I'd be hesitant to close it until I had a chance to have a dialogue with chaals
16:19:06 <koalie> SteveZ: My first choice would be to fix 7.4 so we clearly start an AC review
16:19:18 <koalie> ... and 7.1 so it's clear what starts a provisitional approval
16:19:25 <koalie> ... and that 39 stays the way it is.
16:19:33 <koalie> ... 39 is just a transition document
16:19:53 <koalie> ... not necessarily part of the process, at some point it ceases to have value.
16:20:06 <koalie> ... I think you should raise the two issues we talked about; they are important.
16:20:27 <koalie> ... I'm not sure what happened there; I'm reasonably sure chaals is on board with that.
16:20:32 <koalie> Jeff: Yes.
16:20:40 <koalie> ... he confirmed it was the intent.
16:20:54 <koalie> ... but then I did a more complete review and noticed discrepancies.
16:22:24 <koalie> Jeff: If you send a document at CR and features are dropped, the AC wouldn't know about it.
16:23:30 <koalie> SteveZ: 7.5.1 documents that
16:24:03 <koalie> Jeff: I see that, what's missing is the meaning of "provisional approval" (not dropping features)
16:24:18 <koalie> Mike: Let's not reinvent what a Candidate Recommendation is.
16:24:25 <koalie> SteveZ: The change is subtle
16:24:28 <fantasai> s/Candidate/Proposed/
16:25:05 <koalie> SteveZ: Provisional approval that the Director says this really is the LC and you have 28 days to raise and close an issue
16:25:51 <koalie> ... the attempts is to say that the AC review starts at CR and 28 days after LC.
16:26:02 <koalie> Jeff: Yes, so long as it's clearly documented.
16:26:16 <koalie> Mike: How is that different from PR status
16:26:30 <koalie> SteveZ: PR @@ AC Review
16:27:05 <koalie> Mike: I agree with the substance of the change that AC review is welcome at LCCR (or whatever we call it these days)
16:27:08 <jeff> s/@@/starts/
16:27:10 <fantasai> Mike++
16:27:37 <koalie> ... we have a dilemma: keeping familiar words or creating words that sound different but are so similar
16:27:53 <koalie> ... Is that change worth the confusion it causes?
16:28:22 <koalie> Fantasai: One thing to notice is that we're giving a heads-up on things not meant to change and you have 4 weeks to object
16:28:45 <jeff> q+
16:28:46 <koalie> ... we have the exact same thing at WD to CR where we want to give heads-up
16:29:25 <koalie> ... I agree to not have a different W3C status, we should be treating them the same in the Process
16:30:02 <koalie> Mike: I've liked the philosophy all along of signaling and making things explicit
16:30:50 <koalie> Jeff: To support some of Mike's points with the provisional approval notion, it's not just a change of name, we're also asking the Director to jump in the middle of the process at CR
16:31:09 <koalie> ... Somewhere in the middle the Director is to give his provisional approval and we're still in CR
16:32:03 <koalie> SteveZ: I'm ambivalent on that. Chaals had strong feelings. It might be a topic to take up with the full AB.
16:32:48 <koalie> Jeff: The more immediate problem is to fix the text.
16:32:58 <koalie> SteveZ: +1
16:33:14 <koalie> ... Do we know when chaals is back from vacation?
16:33:22 <koalie> fantasai: He sent an e-mail
16:33:39 <koalie> ... but I got the date wrong, nevermind.
16:34:22 <koalie> SteveZ: Jeff, if you could submit the issues, that would be helpful.
16:34:37 <koalie> ... about what needs to go in 7.4 and 7.5.1
16:34:41 <koalie> Jeff: Yes.
16:34:50 <koalie> SteveZ: Let's go back to issue-39...
16:35:16 <koalie> ... If we fix 7.4 and 7.5.1, your issue isn't an issue because the process will tell you what to do
16:35:27 <koalie> ... Do we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text Ralph sent?
16:35:29 <koalie> [none]
16:35:46 <koalie> RESOLUTION:  we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text Ralph sent
16:35:54 <koalie> close issue-39
16:35:54 <trackbot> Closed issue-39.
16:36:22 <koalie> issue-39: CHAP7 TF agreed to close issue-39 with Ralph's text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html
16:36:22 <trackbot> Notes added to issue-39 Managing the transition to a new TR cycle.
16:36:27 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
16:36:27 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, koalie
16:36:31 <koalie> q?
16:36:36 <koalie> q- jeff
16:36:39 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
16:36:39 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
16:36:40 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:36:40 <Zakim> 2. Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization [from koalie]
16:38:38 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 2
16:38:38 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization" taken up [from koalie]
16:39:57 <koalie> [discussion of classes of changes and substantive change]
16:40:48 <koalie> SteveZ: I'll ask chaals to make a combination of change as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/thread.html#msg0
16:41:46 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
16:41:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
16:41:47 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:41:47 <Zakim> 3. Discuss raised issues [from koalie]
16:42:19 <koalie> SteveZ: With chaals not on this call, it doesn't make sense to take up topic 4 "Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review"
16:42:43 <koalie> ... Jeff, does it make sense to discuss the 16 issues you raised?
16:43:08 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 3
16:43:09 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Discuss raised issues" taken up [from koalie]
16:43:19 <koalie> -> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised Raised issues
16:47:03 <koalie> Jeff: In 7.3.1 and 7.2.2 @@
16:49:14 <koalie> [discussion about maturity levels and what criteria apply]
16:51:26 <koalie> s/@@/conflict @@/
16:51:57 <koalie> Jeff: in 7.5.2 talks about testing requirement, but 7.4 doesn't have testing requirement
16:52:27 <koalie> SteveZ: 3rd bullet in 7.4
16:52:38 <koalie> ... "must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,"
16:53:33 <koalie> ... 7.5.2 has two similar statements that could be combined
16:54:25 <koalie> ... bullet 2 and 6
16:55:27 <koalie> Jeff: If testing isn't required, bullet 6 in 7.5.2 shouldn't mention it.
16:55:35 <koalie> ... I'm raising the issue.
16:55:40 <koalie> SteveZ: It's a valid issue.
16:56:04 <koalie> ... a possible quick fix is merging bullet 2 and 6, perhaps with an "e.g."
16:56:37 <koalie> ... Anything else for this call?
16:56:41 <koalie> q?
16:56:49 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
16:57:08 <koalie> SteveZ: Thanks all, and thanks Jeff for this extended review.
16:57:26 <koalie> ... next meeting 13-Jan
16:57:31 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:57:37 <Zakim> -fantasai
16:57:45 <koalie> trackbot, end meeting
16:57:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:57:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Jeff, Mike_Champion, SteveZ, koalie, fantasai
16:57:50 <Zakim> -koalie
16:57:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:57:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/06-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
16:57:54 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:57:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:57:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:57:55 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has ended
16:57:55 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, Mike_Champion, SteveZ, koalie, fantasai