<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2014

<koaliie> Minutes and summary of previous (2014-01-13)

<scribe> scribe: Coralie

<scribe> scribenick: koalie

Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81

SteveZ: issues 56-58 may have been implemented in the Jan. 21 draft
... I closed those

issue-67?

<trackbot> issue-67 -- Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more effective to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/67

SteveZ: I closed it and we opened issue-83 instead

issue-83

<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize process steps in their charters -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83

SteveZ: It was Jeff's request to close it with opening another
... Thanks Mike for the suggestion

issue-70?

<trackbot> issue-70 -- Usage of "normative" needs clarification -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/70

SteveZ: This as been implemented as far as I can tell

Chaals: Yes, I implemented this quite a while ago

SteveZ: I'll close issue-70

issue-70: chaals: I implemented this quite a while ago

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

issue-72?

<trackbot> issue-72 -- Rationalising the definition of different types of change -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72

SteveZ: You did implement that. The one suggestion that came up was that you move the combined thing up to 7.2 section where the other definitions are
... so people get to see it early
... and reference it back in 7.8

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to move changes section earlier in document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Move changes section earlier in document [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-03].

issue-72: suggestion to move the combined thing up to 7.2 where other definitions are and reference it back in 7.8

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-72 Rationalising the definition of different types of change.

SteveZ: I left issue-72 as "pending" because of action-27

issue-81

<trackbot> issue-81 -- Opening of AC review -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/81

SteveZ: I noted you implemented that one too
... Closing that one too

issue-81: chaals implemented it too

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-81 Opening of AC review.

chaals: issue-59 has been implemented except "end game" split as issue-57

SteveZ: Did we really resolve issue-57?

issue-57

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

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

chaals: Yes

SteveZ: Found it in 7.2.1
... closing that one ...

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

SteveZ: Didn't we reject it?

chaals: We haven't made significant changes
... we agreed on the conditions under which we could make the changes

SteveZ: other than clarifying the definition of change and substantive changes, no other correction were made

issue-47: We rejected it, after agreeing on the conditions under which we could make the changes. Other than clarifying the definition of change and substantive changes, no other correction were made

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

Discuss Issues 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 83 and 84

SteveZ: 61 to 67 open for now

issue-75

<trackbot> issue-75 -- How and to whom are transitions announced? -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/75

SteveZ: it's on my list for discussion.
... Chaals you said you felt calling out WGs
... Do these announcements go to chairs?

chaals: No
... practice should change to follow the process

http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr

[[In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has been published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to chairs@w3.org and the group's public mailing list. ]]

chaals: My proposal is to enforce the requirement better if we are not doing it, and not change the process
... the point is to enforce it

Mike: my counter suggestion is, what problem are we trying to solve
... and how to specify the announcement, or leave unspecified and leave it to the group to do the right thing
... sending a message to a mailing list is not necessariy the right thing

SteveZ: it just says "announce"

Mike: Leaving it to the discretion of the chair

SteveZ: The process says the Director announces to other W3C groups and to the public.

Mike: We should encourage the Director collectively to not just put it on the W3C homepage
... there are relatively few of us who follow the W3C homepage
... I agree with chaals, the team needs to figure out how to make sure the proper audience gets notified

SteveZ: I added to tracker " mechanisms are left to the Team and should be the current mechanisms"
... We're closing that one

RESOLUTION: issue-75: The TF believes that it is important to announce new work to both the other W3C Groups and the Public. The mechanisms used for announcement are left up to the Team to determine and should reflect current usage of announcement mechanisms.

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

SteveZ: I forgot to close it... [closing]
... all pending review are dealt with
... that takes us to open issues

<Ralph> issue-74?

<trackbot> issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74

chaals: My suggestion is to use a MUST

SteveZ: Any objection?
... Resolved

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to make the setting of expectations / next step in documents a must (ISSUE-74) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Make the setting of expectations / next step in documents a must (issue-74) [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-03].

RESOLUTION: issue-74: change SHOULD to MUST

issue-52

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

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

SteveZ: You still have work to do on that one?

chaals: I don't see action related to issue-52

SteveZ: ... oh that's issue-77

chaals: Do we introduce some formal change? do we adopt Mike's proposal of issue-83? do we decide that beyond addressing 83 we're not going to do anything more to the document. How to get review is up to the WG and that they did demonstrate at transition

SteveZ: I'm willing to close this one in favour of issue-83

chaals: Makes sense to me

issue-52: closing in favour of issue-83

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

SteveZ: So we closed issue-52

issue-76

<trackbot> issue-76 -- Requirement to document changes between CR publications -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/76

chaals: I'd suggest that next we do this it be an action under issue-77

issue-76: tied to issue-77

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-76 Requirement to document changes between CR publications.

issue-78

<trackbot> issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion and wide review of rescindment request are redundant -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78

chaals: Ian wants to simplify the requirements for rescinding recommendation
... he says there's a redundant step
... if you clarify that WG makes request and the Director decides
... I agree with the issue
... it takes a bit of shuffling of the text on rescinding recommendation
... basically there's a statement that you can rescind on public comment
... Ian's proposal is: The request may come from the WG and the Director is to decide.

SteveZ: There may be no WG to rescind. In fact it's likely.

chaals: In the case where a request comes from a WG the Director is likely to ask where the public comment is.

SteveZ: I agree
... You want to get rid of the "should" bullet?

chaals: Yes

SteveZ: Mike, Ralph?

[no comment]

RESOLUTION: issue-78 Drop the Should bullet in 7.8

issue-83

<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize process steps in their charters -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83

chaals: Charters are not the topic of Chapter 7.
... I propose we add an informative note: Groups are welcome to create their own additional procedures. A status of information is available
... and I suggest we move the rest of that issue

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to put an informative note in saying specific work items may have added custom process (ISSUE-83) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Put an informative note in saying specific work items may have added custom process (issue-83) [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-03].

<Ralph> [a Group should only be able to add to this Process, not drop steps listed here]

SteveZ: My preferred reason for sticking it in the charter is because of charter review
... issue-83 goes from open to pending review

issue-84

<trackbot> issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84

chaals: This is a blocker for issue-77, my proposal is to reinstate Proposed Recommendation

SteveZ: doesn't trigger patent review, or anything?

chaals: It triggers a stop clock

SteveZ: another comment. An entry requirement is that the final patent exclusion period has ended

chaals: the clock is there, the should requirement is there to ensure you know what you're doing

SteveZ: I'm ok with a should.

RESOLUTION: issue-84: reinstate proposed recommendation that says that 4 weeks remain in the AC Review period and has no other consequences.

SteveZ: issue-84 is now pending review

Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review

SteveZ: We should be thinking about how to get to a full document for review at the March AB f2f
... chaals said issue-77 will require a lot of work
... I'm going to be incommunicado most of February

chaals: I don't see any complication at all in checking references and dependencies

Next meeting

SteveZ: Next meeting next Monday 3-Feb

chaals: Would it be annoying to hold that meeting one hour later?
... nevermind, I can do it at this time

SteveZ: Thanks everyone
... adjourned.