Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2014

<koaliie> summary and minutes of previous TF meeting [2014-01-06]

<scribe> scribe: CoralieMercier

<scribe> scribenick: koalie

[meeting starts]

Raised issues 56-80

SteveZ: Let's go over http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised

issue-56?

<trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56

SteveZ: issue-55 may be an AB issue but not necessarily part of the process
... re: issue-56, I raised it in response to Larry Masinter
... who felt if we have dependencies
... 1) identified dependencies, in which case WG is obliged to notify
... [let me back up]
... Not sure the process requires a group notifies groups listed in the dependencies section of the charter
... but it would be a good idea
... thoughts from others?

Jeff: I was on the queue before you started 56
... I'll answer your question
... Isn't this the issue we talked about a lot about what has to be done for wide-review
... and how much we want to dictate in the process
... or leave it to WG?
... the former is what I thought we'd discussed

SteveZ: What I was concerned about is to ensure a group has cleared its dependencies
... let me check that

fantasai: I think it's not unreasonable for the process to require some advance notice before stepping to LCCR and REC
... up to the WG to figure out how

<fantasai> to make sure that that announcement is pretty muchignored because everyone has reviewed the spec already

SteveZ: "A recommended practice" is what section 7.2.2 mentions
... What I think Larry was looking for is about the general public

Jeff: There is specific verbiage on the 4th line which is recommended as a replacement for the current language
... I have no objection for the proposed verbiage.

fantasai: That seems ok

Mike: That's OK
... at one time I had concerns but with this wording I'm not concerned too much.

SteveZ: proposed RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review

<jeff> qq?

RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review

issue-57?

<trackbot> issue-57 -- Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57

SteveZ: the proposed resolution is to use "make available" instead of "publish"
... any objection?
... hearing none, setting issue-57 to pending review

RESOLUTION: moving issue-57 to pending review

Jeff: these TF calls are less effective when the editor isn't available
... I request the chair locates the editor
... and maybe we need to reschedule the time of that call
... Also we have an AB call next Monday
... we'll need to share a status with the AB

SteveZ: I accept the challenge

Mike: Do we adjourn until Chaals is on the call?

SteveZ: There are issues I think we can make progress on
... I meant to use the time to go over them

Jeff: I agree on the condition that when you catch up with chaals you tell them what we decided
... so that we don't re-hash them next time

SteveZ: that would be my intent

Mike: WFM

SteveZ: I can't garantee that I'll get in touch with chaals this week

issue-58?

<trackbot> issue-58 -- Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being progressed -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58

SteveZ: I raised this one about Bullet 2 of section 7.2.3
... I think this is out of date
... [the suggestion was to clarify this is about "the current specification"]
... There is no 7.2.3 section anymore

Jeff: It appears to apply to 7.2.4

SteveZ: Yes
... any objection to clarify this is about "the current specification"?

Mike: That's fine.

RESOLUTION: moving issue-58 to pending review

issue-60?

<trackbot> issue-60 -- Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60

SteveZ: I know this is one chaals is positioned on and I agree with
... Art Barstow said we should move the draft to github
... I don't think it will work with the time-frame we are working on
... and comments should be done on the mailing list or during these TF meetings
... I propose to close this issue

Mike: the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand to work on this document, perhaps because this is not on github
... on the other hand, if we were making these changes in a github repo, we might no be waiting for chaals
... it is something to think about.

SteveZ: Chaals has already accepted Elika as a co-editor, and I can help too
... Your observation is a good one

fantasai: It's in a repository at the W3C
... it should be fairly easy to access that for someone in the community
... I don't see particular benefits in the [github] case

Jeff: I agree that we should close it
... I would like to note that chaals said in his e-mail that putting the draft on github
... would generate extra work

RESOLUTION: issue-60 closed, not accepted.

issue-61?

<trackbot> issue-61 -- Move the Acknowledgements to a separate Appendix at the end of the doc -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/61

SteveZ: We can move the acknoledgement section to a separate appendix but we're editing only chapter 7,
... so we could make that issue "pending review"
... thoughts on that?
... that is issue-61, 62, 63, 64
... all are things that will naturally happen when we publish a revised process with revised chapter 7 in it
... I'd propose to mark these as pending review that will happen when we publish a new document
... any objections?

[none]

RESOLUTION: move issue-61, 62, 63 and 64 to pending review, all will happen when we publish a new document

issue-65?

<trackbot> issue-65 -- Chapter 7: define stable and unstable -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/65

Jeff: do we know in which part of the document we use "stable" or "unstable"?

<fantasai> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/tip/tr.html

fantasai: cf. chaals reply

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0020.html

<fantasai> "maximize consensus about the content of stable technical reports"

[[ ISSUE-65 is about defining the terms "stable" and "unstable". I believe

they are used in their normal sense and so definition is unnecessary, and

propose closing the issue. ]]

<fantasai> "A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference for a document that is not intended to be a specification requiring conformance"

[SteveZ reading from the draft]

<fantasai> "may request publication of a Working Draft even if its content is considered unstable"

fantasai: I don't see a problem, I think we should close it

Jeff: we should explain the reason

SteveZ: I agree

<SteveZ> The reason for closing is: the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in nonmormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant consequence

Jeff: yes

RESOLUTION: Close issue-65 with reason: "the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant consequence"

issue-65: closing with reason "the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant consequence"

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-65 Chapter 7: define stable and unstable.

issue-66?

<trackbot> issue-66 -- Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/66

Mike: wearing my AC hat on I don't know what position Microsoft might have
... Resolving some of these issues by making LC optional and mapping the process verbiage to make clear the patents and disclosure requirements are triggered at CR or what we would call the Last Call
... What an English speaking would understand by "last call"

SteveZ: Right now the proposal is that there are two years to implement
... I'd reply to Art and Paul that we're not trying to rush, but implement in a positive manner
... I think the AB is willing to consider input that comes from practical problems
... I'm OK with closing this
... with Jeff's comment that it's not specific enough to deal with

Mike: I'm making a specific suggestion that we resolve it by leaving an optional LC period for people who run big slow-moving WGs
... Overall I'm not interested to optimize the process for the CSS WG, to pick one
... that knows how to make modular specs.
... We have other groups, such as TPWG

SteveZ: We discussed amending charters with expectations in terms of LC

Mike: Thanks for reminding me of that

Jeff: Is that in the resolution of some issue?

SteveZ: It was suggested as a best practices
... Perhaps the best place is in the section about "wide review"

Jeff: In my mind, if someone wants to raise an issue, there are groups where LC is the right time
... an issue like that is valid for this TF to consider
... can we create and resolve issue-83 and point it in issue-66?

issue-83?

<trackbot> Sorry, but issue-83 does not exist.

Jeff: We've had an extremely long conversation in the community about why we want to change the process and the feedback is that it's a good idea
... if some don't want to go in the direction of agility,
... I'm OK to acccommodating it,
... but not at the last minute

SteveZ: This came up at a last meeting, let me see..

Mike: OK, I'll raise an issue.

Jeff: If it's not part of the process if it's in the guidebook, we have to agree to put it in the process first

SteveZ: I'm looking into December meeting minutes

Mike: Our original mission was to try and change the process to improve it within the patent policy, and there's been complexity
... We can give advice, but at the end of the day, we're constrained by the patent policy

Mike: I'll file an issue and suggest this as a way of resolving some of the concerns various people have raised.

SteveZ: the issue is specifically that we suggest to WG to put an optional LC into their charter

fantasai: the issue is about review
... also, if this is about having a stage in developement to get comments,
... then they can create that phase for them, and we need to clearly label that phase
... we should be solving this as a more general case
... that of better labelling
... if groups could create their own labels, would it be helpful to communicate this?
... other groups might decide on 3 @@@
... I don't think we should be changing the process document
... I think we do need to allow people to experiment
... It would be good if they can come up with useful labels
... and a given group can pick what they think might work for them

<fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0012.html

SteveZ: If I remember correctly, you accepted an action to document this

fantasai: I don't recall, but I can try.

SteveZ: I propose to leave that issue open until we have a clear statement of work happening

Jeff: what does that mean?

SteveZ: either till we get an issue-83
... or when we have a proposal to update the document

Jeff: Are we assigning an action?

SteveZ: I asked Elika

<scribe> ACTION: fantasai Describe experiment of wide-review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Describe experiment of wide-review [on Elika Etemad - due 2014-01-20].

Jeff: Is this to address issue-66?

SteveZ: That's fine with me

issue-66: see action-26 on elika to Describe experiment of wide-review

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-66 Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems.

action-23: see issue-66 "Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems"

<trackbot> Notes added to action-23 Get in touch with art about issue-50 and check assessment.

RESOLUTION: Elika took an action to describe experiment of getting "wide review", Mike will raise a new issue. This issue is pending until there is a new issue raised, or a proposal to update the document.

Next meeting

SteveZ: no meeting next week because there's an AB one
... Next meeting is 27-Jan

trackbot, end meeting