See also: IRC log
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]
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]