W3C

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

26 Aug 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jeff, +1.416.770.aaaa, dsinger, SteveZ, Jay, timeless, Mike_Champion, Chaals, +1.512.257.aabb, virginie, Ralph
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
jeff

Contents


who dialed from 416-770?

<Jay> Hi This is Jay

who is the IPcaller?

<chaals> morning...

<scribe> scribenick: jeff

Steve: We have two tasks in parallel.
... Process 2015 is mostly two structural changes

chaals, are you joining?

Mike: With so much substance in activities, perhaps we shouldn't drop them
... make process more tedious if we move everything into charters
... (unless we don't take it into charters)

<chaals> [I note there is a lot of stuff in Domains, but we don't seemto need them in the Process…]

<dsinger> can we skim all these issues before we take up Michael’s point?

Steve: The suggested resolution is "do nothing" which addresses your concern.
... applaud Chaals for being careful - not throwing things away without a discussion

Mike: Fair enough
... let's not add stuff just because they were in activities

Steve: Yes, and I explained in my proposed issue resolution.

Timeless: Art raised issue about extensions and someone raised about appeals.
... you wanted to do nothing, but I thought it was reasonable.

Steve: Charter decisions are appealable.

Timeless: On extension side - should be easy to extend for 12 months without much effort.

<chaals> [I will call, if Ralph's good offices succeed in getting me a connection...]

Steve: Main difference for activities - they allowed creation of chartered WGs without going to AC.
... AC insisted on having all charters reviewable
... so Activities became a useless burden

Timeless: Please include that in removable notes.

Steve: Sure.
... I did suggested resolutions for various issues.
... primarily do nothing.
... Issues 111-123
... let's get through them quickly.
... [repeats Mike discussion for Chaals' benefit]
... Issue 111 --> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/111
... suggest moving similar statement to Section 6.2.2.
... Objections?

<chaals> [+1 to Steve's proposal]

<dsinger> seems superfluous

Steve: let's close

[discussion whether this overstates the obvious]

Issue 112 --> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/112

<chaals> RESOLUTION: The statement about activities being based on interest goes to the charter section

<dsinger> slightly more interesting; activities represent areas where we may need staff with new expertise etc.

Next we discuss Issue 112 -- > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/112

<chaals> ISSUE-112

<trackbot> ISSUE-112 -- Remove Activity Proposals -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/112

SZ: Suggest we do nothing.
... current process makes it clear that this is needed for charters

CMN: Happy to remove

SZ: I will close with suggested resolution.

Issue 113

ISSUE - 113

ISSUE-113

<trackbot> ISSUE-113 -- Advisory Committee Review of Charter Extentions -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/113

SZ: Extension of Activity Charter required AC review; WG charter does not
... this was by design; not by accident
... since Activities could create new charters

<dsinger> As long as the process is clear that any formal Decision may be appealed, then all we need is to have a formal extension Decision email

SZ: however WG extensions do not have change in scope and is appealable.
... seems adequate. Recommend to do nothing.

CMN: Pointer for extensions to charter?

SZ: Section 6.2.5

CMN: I'm happy. Do nothing.

<Jay> support Do nothing

SZ: Objections?
... I will close with do nothing.

ISSUE-114

<trackbot> ISSUE-114 -- Review period for charter extensions -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/114

SZ: Becomes moot given our last action.
... propose to close and do nothing.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say there should be a review to extend charters

Jeff: Is it a charter extension if we renew for 2 years with no other changes.

SZ: no.
... it is a re-charter.

CMN: I would like to see more AC review if the Team says "this is out of charter for 6 months - let's extend for a year - and do this several times."

<dsinger> we should look into a formal review requirement after a period of time; there should be a max for the number of extensions

Mike: That would defeat the purpose of putting a schedule in a charter.
... I can see extending up to 6 months.

DS: Should be a maximum time for extensions.

<dsinger> yes, agree, it should be filed away as a new issue

jeff: Can someone raise the issue of maximum extensions and have it part of Process2016

CMN: Let's do it as part of Process2015.

SZ: We can try, but no promises.
... Closing Issue 114 as moot

ISSUE-115

<trackbot> ISSUE-115 -- Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115

SZ: Art sent to ac-forum on this as well.
... don't know what discussion was.
... but we agreed that maintenance of activities is done by Comm team

<dsinger> we should change this to require (a) yearly (b) a review of the working groups that includes them all in some suitable way

SZ: hence up to comm team
... So I think we should not put this on charters

CMN: ... Makes sense to have requirement that team maintain information
... Dashboard discussion is around the same issue.
... e.g. at AC meetings
... don't have wording

acj cha

DS: Having Team report on every activity means we should report on every WG.
... team can structure how they like.

<Ralph> [Ralph joins]

<dsinger> I want to avoid that we get zombie WGs that don’t get reported on and no-one notices

Jeff: Point out that semiannual pre-AC meeting report achieves much of this.

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to remind folks that we give an update twice a year

timeless: +1 to DS and CMN

SZ: Can someone take an action items to draft text?

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to draft text to keep the requirement for informing AC on status of WGs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Draft text to keep the requirement for informing ac on status of wgs [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-09-02].

<Jay> +1 to DS too

<dsinger> make that ALL WGs

SZ: Issue 115 is Open pending the resolution of Action 32

ISSUE-116

<trackbot> ISSUE-116 -- Announcing a Working Group Charter -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/116

SZ: There is already text for a new WG
... Intent to create as well as announce the charter itself
... Text for announcing activities already exists for charters
... suggested resolution is to do nothing.

timeless: That section also discusses processes to define workshops
... are workshops written about elsewhere?

CMN: No, workshops are defined elsewhere. No concern.

timeless: Good

SZ: Objections to "do nothing?"
... 116 is closed

ISSUE-117

<trackbot> ISSUE-117 -- Requirement for dissent in the AC Review of an Activity Proposal to Appeal an approval -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/117

SZ: Section on appeals (8.2) already says you can only appeal if you dissented.
... hence no need to add text to repeat statement
... proposed resolution is "do nothing"
... Objections?
... 117 is closed.

ISSUE-118

<trackbot> ISSUE-118 -- Context Informaton in Activity Proposals -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/118

<dsinger> 118 is interesting. this is the general question “are we working in the right technical areas? is our strategic direction good? do we fit in, overlap, etc.?”

SZ: Requirement that activity proposal have context about the relation with the rest of the world.
... suggested resolution. information should be in announcement of charter.

<dsinger> I fear charters are too fine-grained.

SZ: violates Mike's criteria of having additional effort

<dsinger> I’d like to refer this to the AB for input and discussion on strategic direction making

Jeff: Yes, Mike's concern seems appropriate.

DS: Also agree with concern.
... WG charters are too fine-grained.
... AB should discuss separately how we make sure that overall technical direction is aligned.

SZ: I see two way out of this.
... 1. Close this issue and ask AB to open another issue to track general deployment
... 2. Keep this issue open and await input from AB.
... I would prefer the first solution.

<dsinger> slight preference for the latter, in case the AB decides something should happen in the process

<chaals> [+1 to Dsinger]

SZ: I would like to close it because it does not go in charters

DS: Gives us a way to track it.

CMN: We are not introducing a new requirement.
... no metrics on whether an explanation is sufficient.

<dsinger> let’s take it to the AB strategic direction discussion at the upcoming f2f?

SZ: I felt that way too, but 2-3 people spoke the opposite direction.

CMN: But I think this is not new work.

SZ: I will leave it open for now
... I will indicate the positions.
... David, can you raise an AB issue?

CMN: Why can't that be an issue here?

SZ: Maybe it is not an issue on process?

CMN: But it should still be here until we determine otherwise.

SZ: So we will leave it open.

ISSUE-119

<trackbot> ISSUE-119 -- Description of the Activity/Charter's scope -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/119

DS: Similar to 118

SZ: Deal with it next week.

ISSUE-121

<trackbot> ISSUE-121 -- Intellectual property information.in charters -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121

SZ: Suggest resolution of "do nothing"
... reqt already there for charters.

DS: Where is the text

SZ: At the bottom

DS: Links fail

<Ralph> [links work for Ralph]

DS: I'm concerned that this is important. Burying it might make it too hard to find.

SZ: But we don't repeat text.

<Ralph> [[

<Ralph> The following obligations shall apply to all participants in W3C Working Groups. These obligations will be referenced from each Working Group charter and Calls for Participation.

<Ralph> ]]

<Ralph> -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Obligations

DS: As an editorial change, we should clarify the exposition.

SZ: Dave, will you take an action to propose text?

CMN: This is important. Needs to be presented. Not part of patent process.
... strategic information about the universe.
... belongs in chartering section.

SZ: Will you take an action?

<scribe> ACTION: on chaals to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: on chaals, to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/users>.

<Jay> bye

<scribe> ACTION: chaals to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-09-02].

[adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: chaals to draft text to keep the requirement for informing AC on status of WGs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: on chaals to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: on chaals, to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/08/26 15:40:17 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: jeff
Inferring Scribes: jeff

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Jeff, +1.416.770.aaaa, dsinger, SteveZ, Jay, timeless, Mike_Champion, Chaals, +1.512.257.aabb, virginie, Ralph
Present: Jeff +1.416.770.aaaa dsinger SteveZ Jay timeless Mike_Champion Chaals +1.512.257.aabb virginie Ralph

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 26 Aug 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html

WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: on chaals to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action02]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: on chaals, to propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-w3process-minutes.html#action03]

People with action items: chaals

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]