See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014
<koaliie> Previous (2014-01-27)
<koalie> scribe: Coralie
<koalie> scribenick: koalie
issue-56?
<trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
SteveZ: I closed 56
... I closed issues after our last meeting
SteveZ: 56-58, 67, are closed
chaals: 72, 74, 78 are "pending review"
chaals: 83 and 84 are also pending review
... Want me to talk through what I did?
SteveZ: Yes.
issue 72?
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
chaals: 72: I moved the section defining changes to the earlier definitions section, as agreed
issue-74?
<trackbot> issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps? -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
chaals: 74: Changed the "should document
expectations of next steps" to a must
... Current draft's date is 2 February
<koaliie> Current draft
chaals: 7.2.5 Classes of Changes
SteveZ: I closed issue-74
issue-78?
<trackbot> issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion and wide review of rescindment request are redundant -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
chaals: I removed the redundant requirement
issue-83?
<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize process steps in their charters -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
chaals: I wrote email explaining that I would address the part of issue-83 relevant to this chapter in the next editor's draft
<koaliie>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0003.html
SteveZ: We'll leave that one pending.
issue-84?
<trackbot> issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
chaals: part of issue-77
... and related to e-mail I sent
<koaliie>Clarifying the steps from CR to Rec
SteveZ: OK, we'll leave it pending.
<SteveZ> Item: 2. Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
SteveZ: suggested ways to resolve outstanding
issues
... I'd like to postpone 6
issue-6?
<trackbot> issue-6 -- Producing Recommendations when we know they need to be refined -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/6
chaals: I can live with postponing 6
... I think we need to deal with it, but maybe not immediately
SteveZ: We can bring it up next Monday's phone call
chaals: I can live with postponing.
SteveZ: OK
Mike: I'm not unhappy about it.
RESOLUTION: Issue-6: POSTPONED. This topic is beyond the scope of the current Chapter 7 updates and revisions.
issue-69?
<trackbot> issue-69 -- Chapter 7: get Wide Review of Chapter 7 from other SDOs -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/69
SteveZ: I think it's moot
... my proposed resolution for that was we notify SDOs of the updated Process
when we have a full draft
chaals: I think we should ensure ISO in particular is aware
Mike: Let's run it with the AB
SteveZ: Can I close it or do we want "pending review" on this one?
Mike: We need to make sure the AB thinks about this
SteveZ: Chaals, OK with closing?
chaals: Yes, sure.
RESOLUTION: issue-69: CLOSE: Independent SDOs do not review their proposed Process changes with other SDOs and the Chapter 7 changes do not reduce Review opportunities. Since our status as a PAS submitter depends on our process, we should get a review by ISO/IEC JTC 1 when we have a complete revised Process Document.
issue-79?
<trackbot> issue-79 -- Don't require republication after 6 months of no publication -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
SteveZ: The message trail has Ian writing it would be OK to not require republication after 6 months
chaals: I would like an Updated status for a document on TR to publishing a document on TR
SteveZ: If I accept your definition of publishing, I understand. I'm not sure anybody reading this document would catch on to that.
chaals: Propose something?
SteveZ: I don't want to overspecify "pubrules"
... if the only change is an update to status section, that can be done in
place.
chaals: We don't say what publishing or making changes in place means
SteveZ: I can live with your interpretation
... Closed.
RESOLUTION: issue-79: CLOSED with no change to this document. It is proposed (by the Team) that if the only change to a document is to update its status, indicating why there has been no update in 6 months, then Pubrules would allow that to be done in place without generating a new TR.
issue-80?
<trackbot> issue-80 -- Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be SHOULD -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
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
disappeared
... I suggested that someone has to declare the work unfinished
... There is nothing in 7.3.2
... How about we say "The Working Group, or the W3C Team, MUST publish the
document as a Working Group Note" with appropriate status?
Mike: So after a certain amount of time the MUST must be clear
chaals: the WG has a SHOULD, while active
Mike: any kind of timeline when the group is active?
chaals: Before next transition
Mike: So it's a MUST on the Team
... does the current process say anything about it?
chaals: I don't think the current process says anything at all about it.
Mike: The proposal is to make it a MUST on the Team and a SHOULD on the WG?
SteveZ: Yes
Mike: OK.
SteveZ: "The Working Group SHOULD, or the Team MUST" is my current wording
chaals: If the Director wants a WG to stop, he closes the WG and accepts the responsibility of publishing unfinished work on behalf of the team.
SteveZ: In the case not covered, I wanted to add "W3C team MUST publish the document as a WG Note"
chaals: Someone should, otherwise someone has
to.
... If you add "W3C MUST" then you can take out "Working Group SHOULD". But I
don't think that is a good idea
... the responsibility is a SHOULD, and we should leave it with the Working
Group.
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 requiring a WG to
discontinue.
... We can leave this for discussion next Monday.
chaals: I don't know many cases when the Director 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
Mike: [yeah]
SteveZ: Changing issue-80 from RAISED to OPEN
issue-77?
<trackbot> issue-77 -- Clarify the process of moving from CR to REC -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/77
chaals: issue-77 includes issue-59, 84 and 76
... I'd like to see feeback on my proposal
<koaliie> Clarifying the steps from CR to Rec
chaals: My recommendation is to require Team
approval
... delegated to the Team contact
SteveZ: Do we agree that substantive changes require a new patent exclusion period?
Mike: It requires wide review certainly
chaals: section 7.4
... the PP isn't clear about what the exclusion opportunity covers
... We should let it sit and request some sense from the PSIG - not because it
would change what we will do here since it makes no real difference to what
goes in the process here, but because clarity would be helpful
... It would certainly most always trigger a new exclusion opportunity
<scribe> scribenick: SteveZ
SteveZ: Changes are:
... 1. change "repeat the full process of publication" to "re-issue the
publication" and define a process for "re-issue"
... 2. Require the approval of the Team Contact to do the re-issue (and that
is the only approval required)
... 3. Begin a new "Patent Exclusion Period" on the new delta
<koalie> scribenick: koalie
chaals: I think we require the Director's
approval but this is largely delegated
... Requiring the Team contact approval, a) it doesn't happen anywhere else
SteveZ: I'm fine with that
chaals: We should 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
SteveZ: We're overtime.
... Out of politeness, we should do a disposition of comment document
... Those are best done in Text files in the CSS WG
chaals: Issue tracker tracks the comments
SteveZ: ... notifying those who raised issues to see if they accept the resolution
<chaals> koalie++ #scribing a rambling conversation like this on dodgy connections