15:20:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:20:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-irc
15:20:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:20:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:20:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:20:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:20:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:20:41 <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014
15:20:46 <koalie> Zakim, this will be chap7
15:20:46 <Zakim> ok, koalie; I see Team_JEFF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 40 minutes
15:20:53 <koalie> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0000.html
15:21:08 <koalie> koalie has changed the topic to: 3-Feb CHAP7: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0000.html
15:21:38 <koalie> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0026.html Previous (2014-01-27)
15:21:43 <koalie> chair: SteveZ
15:21:46 <koalie> scribe: Coralie
15:21:47 <koalie> s/
15:21:54 <koalie> scribenick: koalie
15:22:10 <koalie> s/<koalie> ->/<koaliie> ->/G
15:25:48 <koalie> agenda+ Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81
15:25:59 <koalie> agenda+ Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
15:26:24 <koalie> agenda+ Review the Process within CR (Issues 59, 77)
15:54:41 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #w3process
15:57:23 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has now started
15:57:30 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:02:47 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
16:03:11 <Zakim> +koalie
16:03:11 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveZ, Mike_Champion, koalie
16:05:27 <chaals> zakim, code?
16:05:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 24277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), chaals
16:05:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:52 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
16:05:52 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
16:07:54 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 1
16:07:54 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81" taken up [from koalie]
16:08:16 <koalie> issue-56?
16:08:16 <trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? -- closed
16:08:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
16:08:29 <koalie> SteveZ: I closed 56
16:08:37 <koalie> ... I closed issues after our last meeting
16:08:57 <koalie> chaals: 72, 74, 78 are "pending review"
16:09:40 <koalie> SteveZ: 56-58, 67, are closed
16:09:50 <koalie> chaals: 78 and 84 are also pending review
16:09:58 <koalie> ... Want me to talk through what I did?
16:10:01 <koalie> SteveZ: Yes.
16:10:05 <koalie> issue 72?
16:10:08 <koalie> issue-72?
16:10:08 <trackbot> issue-72 -- Rationalising the definition of different types of change -- pending review
16:10:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72
16:10:32 <koalie> chaals: 72: @@@
16:10:42 <koalie> issue-74?
16:10:42 <trackbot> issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps? -- pending review
16:10:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
16:11:05 <koalie> chaals: 74: @@@
16:11:22 <chaals> s/@@@/I moved the section defining changes to the earlier definitions section, as agreed/
16:11:48 <chaals> rrasgent, draft minutes
16:12:10 <koalie> chaals: Current draft's date is 2 February
16:12:35 <koalie> -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html Current draft
16:13:41 <koalie> chaals: 7.2.5 Classes of Changes
16:14:20 <koalie> SteveZ: I closed issue-74
16:14:24 <koalie> issue-78?
16:14:24 <trackbot> issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion and wide review of rescindment request are redundant -- pending review
16:14:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
16:14:31 <koalie> chaals: I removed the redundant requirement
16:14:55 <koalie> issue-83?
16:14:55 <trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize process steps in their charters -- pending review
16:14:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
16:15:04 <koalie> chaals: I wrote e-mail about issue-83
16:15:21 <koalie> SteveZ: We'll leave that one pending.
16:15:34 <koalie> issue-84?
16:15:34 <trackbot> issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation -- pending review
16:15:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
16:15:49 <koalie> chaals: part of issue-77
16:15:54 <koalie> ... and related to e-mail I sent
16:16:02 <koalie> SteveZ: OK, we'll leave it pending.
16:16:43 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
16:16:43 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
16:16:44 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:16:44 <Zakim> 2. Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84 [from koalie]
16:16:47 <koalie> Zakim, next item
16:16:47 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84" taken up [from koalie]
16:17:22 <SteveZ> Item: 2.	Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
16:17:45 <koalie> SteveZ: suggested ways to resolve outstanding issues
16:17:50 <koalie> ... I'd like to postpone 6
16:17:54 <koalie> issue-6?
16:17:54 <trackbot> issue-6 -- Producing Recommendations when we know they need to be refined -- raised
16:17:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/6
16:18:12 <koalie> chaals: I can live with postponing 6
16:18:25 <koalie> ... I think we @@
16:18:53 <koalie> SteveZ: We can bring it up next Monday's phone call
16:19:00 <koalie> chaals: I can live with postponing.
16:19:03 <koalie> SteveZ: OK
16:19:27 <koalie> Mike: I'm not unhappy about it.
16:19:48 <chaals> s/@@/need to deal with it, but maybe not immediately
16:20:04 <koalie> issue-69?
16:20:04 <trackbot> issue-69 -- Chapter 7: get Wide Review of Chapter 7 from other SDOs -- raised
16:20:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/69
16:20:09 <koalie> SteveZ: I think it's moot
16:21:16 <koalie> ... my proposed resolution for that was we notify SDOs of the update
16:21:43 <koalie> chaals: I think we should ensure ISO in particular is aware
16:22:13 <koalie> s/the update/the update when we have a full draft/
16:22:52 <koalie> Mike: Let's run it with the AB
16:23:15 <koalie> SteveZ: Can I close it or do we want "pending review" on this one?
16:23:27 <koalie> Mike: We need to make sure the AB thinks about this
16:23:39 <koalie> SteveZ: Chaals, OK with closing?
16:23:44 <koalie> chaals: Yes, sure.
16:24:16 <koalie> issue-79?
16:24:16 <trackbot> issue-79 -- Don't require republication after 6 months of no publication -- raised
16:24:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
16:26:37 <koalie> SteveZ: The message trail has Ian it would be OK to not require republication after 6 months
16:26:40 <chaals> s/rrasgent, draft minutes//
16:27:07 <koalie> chaals: I would like an Updated status for a document on TR to publishing a document on TR
16:27:19 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:27:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-minutes.html chaals
16:28:21 <koalie> SteveZ: If I accept your definition of publishing, I understand. I'm not sure anybody reading this document would catch on to that.
16:28:27 <koalie> chaals: Propose something?
16:28:35 <chaals> s/@@@/I moved the section defining changes to the earlier definitions section, as agreed/
16:28:44 <koalie> SteveZ: I don't want to overspecify "pubrules"
16:29:06 <koalie> ... if the only change is an update to status section, that can be done in place.
16:29:16 <koalie> chaals: We don't say what publishing or making changes in place means
16:29:25 <koalie> SteveZ: I can live with your interpretation
16:29:45 <chaals> s/74: I moved the section defining changes to the earlier definitions section, as agreed/74: Changed the "should document expectations of next steps" to a must/
16:30:13 <koalie> SteveZ: Closed.
16:30:27 <chaals> s/78 and 84 are/83 and 84 are/
16:31:10 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:31:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-minutes.html chaals
16:32:02 <koalie> issue-80?
16:32:02 <trackbot> issue-80 -- Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be SHOULD -- raised
16:32:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
16:32:32 <koalie> SteveZ: Must turn work into a note. Chaals said you can't put that on a WG because the likely cause is that the WG disappear
16:32:48 <koalie> ... I suggested that someone has to declare the work unfinished
16:33:00 <koalie> ... There is nothing in 7.3.2
16:33:05 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
16:33:08 <chaals> s/e-mail about issue-83/email explaining that I would address the part of issue-83 relevant to this chapter in the next editor's draft/
16:34:12 <koalie> ... How about we say "The Working Group, or the W3C Team, must publish the document as a Working Group Note" with appropriate status?
16:34:33 <koalie> Mike: So after a certain amount of time the MUST must be clear
16:35:08 <koalie> chaals: the WG has a should, while active
16:35:48 <koalie> Mike: any kind of timeline when the group is active?
16:35:58 <koalie> chaals: next transition
16:36:10 <koalie> Mike: So it's a MUST on the Team
16:36:18 <koalie> ... does the current process say anything about it?
16:36:29 <koalie> chaals: I don't think the current process says anything at all about it.
16:37:05 <koalie> Mike: The proposal is to make it a MUST on the Team and a SHOULD on the WG?
16:37:10 <koalie> SteveZ: Yes
16:37:31 <koalie> Mike: OK.
16:37:59 <koalie> SteveZ: "The Working Group SHOULD, or the Team MUST" is my current wording
16:39:29 <koalie> chaals: If the Director wants a WG to stop, he closes the WG. @@@@
16:40:11 <koalie> SteveZ: In the case not covered, I wanted to add "W3C team MUST publish the document as a WG Note"
16:40:33 <koalie> chaals: Someone should, otherwise someone has to.
16:40:44 <koalie> ... "W3C MUST"
16:40:53 <koalie> ... you can taked out "Working Group SHOULD"
16:40:59 <koalie> s/taked/take/
16:43:10 <koalie> ... the responsibility is a SHOULD, and we should leave it with the Working Group.
16:43:28 <chaals> s/'W3C MUST"/If you add "W3C MUST" then
16:43:54 <chaals> s/SHOULD"/SHOULD". But I don't think that is a good idea/
16:44:04 <koalie> SteveZ: My problem is that the way I read Ian's note, he's not complaining about the Team having the responsibility, but the difference between a WG that closes and the Director requires a WG to discontinue.
16:44:32 <chaals> s/. @@@@/ and accepts the responsibility of publishing unfinished work on behalf of the team./
16:45:11 <koalie> ... We can leave this for discussion next Monday.
16:45:32 <koalie> chaals: I don't know of many cases when the Director requires a WG to stop
16:45:44 <koalie> Mike: [yeah]
16:46:37 <chaals> s/cases/case/
16:47:22 <koalie> SteveZ: Changing issue-80 from RAISED to OPEN
16:47:56 <chaals> s/requires a WG to stop/has required a WG to stop a particular work item while continuing. I don't think there is a real problem to be solved and don't think the nice symmetry in process is worthwhile for this issue/
16:48:11 <koalie> issue-59?
16:48:11 <trackbot> issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some organizational issues and readability suffers -- closed
16:48:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/59
16:48:48 <koalie> chaals: issue-77 includes issue-59, 84 and 76
16:49:38 <koalie> ... I'd like to see feeback on my proposal
16:49:47 <koalie> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0002.html Clarifying the steps from CR to Rec
16:50:17 <koalie> chaals: My recommendation is to require pre-approval
16:51:16 <koalie> ... delegated to the Team contact
16:51:27 <chaals> s/pre-approval/Team approval/
16:52:13 <koalie> SteveZ: Do we agree that @@changes require a new patent exclusion period?
16:52:26 <koalie> Mike: Wide review certainly
16:52:28 <chaals> s/@@changes/substantive changes/
16:54:06 <koalie> chaals: section 7.4
16:55:00 <koalie> ... the PP isn't clear about what the exclusion opportunity covers
16:55:25 <koalie> ... We should let it sit and request some sense from the PSIG
16:57:38 <koalie> ... It would certainly most always trigger a new exclusion opportunity
16:58:03 <chaals> s/PSIG/PSIG - not because it would change what we will do here since it makes no real difference, but because clarity would be helpful/
16:58:42 <koalie> scribenick: SteveZ
16:58:55 <chaals> s/difference/difference to what goes in the process here/
16:59:08 <SteveZ> changes are: 1 change "repeat the full process of publication" to "re-issue the publication" and define a process for "re-issue"
16:59:26 <koalie> s/changes are:/SteveZ: Changes are:/
16:59:41 <SteveZ> 2. Require the approval of the Team Contact to do the re-issue (and that is the only approval required)
17:00:09 <koalie> s/2. /... 2. /
17:00:09 <SteveZ> 3 begin a new "Patent Exclusion Period" on the new delta
17:00:28 <koalie> s/3 begin/... 3. Begin/
17:00:29 <koalie> scribenick: koalie
17:01:12 <koalie> chaals: I think we require the Director's approval but this is largely delegated
17:01:31 <koalie> ... Requiring the TEam contact approval, a) it doesn't happen anywhere else
17:01:38 <koalie> SteveZ: I'm fine with that
17:02:11 <koalie> chaals: We should note a new patent exclusion period @@@@@
17:02:29 <koalie> SteveZ: We're overtime...
17:02:41 <koalie> ... Out of politeness, we should do a @@@document
17:02:58 <koalie> ... Those are best done in Text files in the CSS WG
17:03:13 <koalie> s/a @@@document/an issue document/
17:03:27 <koalie> s/an issue document/a disposition of comment document/
17:03:40 <koalie> chaals: Issue tracker tracks the comments
17:04:29 <koalie> SteveZ: ... notifying those who raised issues to see if they accept the resolution
17:04:54 <chaals> s/note a new patent exclusion period @@@@@/not prescribe a new patent exclusion period, but provide a pointer to the Patent Document and note that an exclusion may arise as a result of new publication/
17:05:43 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
17:06:00 <koalie> Zakim, list attendees
17:06:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been SteveZ, Mike_Champion, koalie, [IPcaller], chaals
17:06:03 <chaals> koalie++ #scribing a rambling conversation like this on dodgy connections
17:06:10 <Zakim> -chaals
17:06:26 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:06:31 <Zakim> -koalie
17:06:33 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has ended
17:06:33 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveZ, Mike_Champion, koalie, [IPcaller], chaals
17:06:36 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
17:06:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-minutes.html koalie
17:08:38 <koalie> s/"W3C MUST"/If you add "W3C MUST" then/
17:09:38 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
17:09:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-minutes.html koalie