SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 02 Sep 2014

<inserted> [ Minutes before this point are missing -- to be inserted by Chair ]

<inserted> scribe: glazou

Steve: I don’t have any email with new draft so stuck there

jeff: we have a bunch of AB actions...
... I think chaals had to move some actions to the CG list
... not sure it happened

Steve: ok
... I still have to do my part of it
... I’ll correspond with chaals about it

Jeff: this work between process CG and AB, cleanup run which is Process2015
... AB meeting in two weeks about it
... AC around end of year
... same time, Process2016 work
... more substantial work on the Process for next year

Steve: was there an action associated with that ?

Jeff: just a reminder

Steve: ok
... last week we went thru issues raised by chaals
... we have a few remaining we can deal with
... issue 120

<SteveZ> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/120

« ISSUE-120: threshold level of effort that Members are expected to pledge »

Steve: originally in the Activity section
... question is should this apply to Charters?
... (reads 6.2.6)
... also estimate of time participation for participants
... time requirements for both Team and participants are already Charter requirements
... so no need to do anything for this one

<jeff> +1

<timeless> issue-115?

<trackbot> issue-115 -- Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months -- open

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

SteveZ: no objection then closed

RESOLUTION: issue 120 closed

<timeless> s|s/the/thenn||

SteveZ: next one on the agenda is 122
... « ISSUE-122: What community is expected to benefit from this Activity? »
... should we put this requirement on Charters?
... suggested that this requirement is only applicable to an Activity
... it is sort of self-evident that when you construct a Charter, the Charter stands alone

<jeff> +1 to closing

SteveZ: so this looks like unnecessary and I suggest closing with « no action required"

glazou: +1

SteveZ: objections?

dsinger__: believes the AB should take an active role, this is another piece of assessment, ok with closing « should be part of AB assessment"

<dsinger__> Plz note as xfered to AB then close

RESOLUTION: close action 122 but make it a part of AB assessment

<SteveZ> Issue 123: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123

SteveZ: ISSUE-123: Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG

<dsinger__> Issue-123?

<trackbot> Issue-123 -- Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123

SteveZ: date of 1st ftf for a newly chartered WG
... timing of things discussed before at AB
... traditionnally 8 weeks after announcement of WG so people can join and make travel plans
... no change suggested but maybe leave open for AB meeting ?

jeff: well, nothing wrong with AB talking more about it

<dsinger__> Not sure what the question is

jeff: why would we extend this beyond 8 weeks?
... if you want to leave it open I won’t object

SteveZ: I’m happy to close it but if AB happens to come with diffferent plan...

jeff: no strong opinion

SteveZ: dsinger, you were part of the discussion?

<dsinger__> Do not recall the issue...

<dsinger__> On noisy street

timeless: no objection

SteveZ: then I will close this one as no change

glazou: +1

RESOLUTION: action 123 closed, no change

<dsinger__> Just concerned I should know what the motive was to ask the question

SteveZ: action 109 discussed over email during last week

« ISSUE-109: Should AC approval be required to extend a charter »

SteveZ: I think in the end there was some agreement
... that we did not need AC approval to extend a Charter
... still discussion there should be a limit on an amount of time for Charter extensions
... six months proposed

glazou: limit to six months w/o AC review ?

SteveZ: correct

<SteveZ> Glazou: As I understand it the proposal is to limit the extension to six months without an AC review

glazou: then I think it is a bad proposal six months not enough
... Some charters are extended multiple times: if limited to six months this this will be a larger overhead on chairs and Team
... It should be at least a year

Mike: my intent here was to encourage WG to be more realistic when they operate
... if you don’t change your scope, it will let you extend too many times
... intent was to put a cap on that
... Team’s task will be to recharter instead of extending

dsinger: this is fairly long
... something between these two positions
... some things are not in the hands of WG
... « you need 5% of membership to support charter"
... if you ask multiple extensions then any Team or AC can say you have to go back to AC
... repeated extensions of Charter may be blocked by Team or AC

SteveZ: if you’re unhappy with Team giving extension you can appeal
... even the 1st six months extension is appealable
... who will appeal?

<dsinger> yes, I understand. perhaps we should look at the wording of the clause in question

timeless: in principle WG job is to maintain « something"
... do we really want to threaten them with « we could refuse extension » ?

<dsinger> I guess we need to look at concrete proposals to change http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#charter-extension

timeless: if they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing...

<dsinger> OK, let us not confuse this we re-chartering where we add/delete deliverables, and so on

<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask about WGs with deliverables that are "maintenance-like" or "continue to evolve X"

jeff: I appreciate what Mike and dsinger are trying to do in theory
... not aware of what practical problem we’re solving
... no permanent extension w/o going to AC

<dsinger> I think we see too many ‘charter … is hereby extended’, but I am saying this without data

<dsinger> I merely want to add the right for the team to call for AC review

jeff: skeptical about new requirements to solve theoretical issues
... I’m more with timeless on this issue

<dsinger> s/Advisory Committee representatives MAY appeal the extension of a Working Group or Interest Group charter./Any member of the AC or the team may request a full charter review in response to a request for an extension./

SteveZ: I agree with you Jeff, I don’t think extensions have been abused
... the reason there is a every-2-yr review is that from time to time a Group cease to function because the membership there dies out
... sometimes you don’t notice that
... for example the XSL-FO group
... it lost energy over time and ceased to function so it was appropriate to close it

<timeless> i support that case

SteveZ: so there is validity in having charter review
... and validity in mike and dsinger point

<dsinger> I am looking at the trace of emails from Ian Jacobs that contain “hereby extended”. There were a lot in 2010, quite a few in 2011, a decent number in 2012, fewer in 2013, and only one so far in 2014

SteveZ: Mike and David can you live w/o that change ? for 2015

Mike: I can live with that
... I think we’re dealing with larger problem with WHATWG people when W3C specs lose credibility

dsinger: looking at Charters
... maybe we’re getting better
... suggestion to change sentence
... AC appeal sounds ok

<timeless> scribe: timeless

dsinger: in 2010 there were many extensions
... in 2011 there were somewhat fewer
... in 2012 there were fewer
... in 2013 there were a handful
... in 2014 there was one or two

SteveZ: we can leave it open, to see if there's a problem to fix or not

dsinger: maybe we should ask Team if they have a problem
... that they need to have a charter review

jeff: formally it's the Director's choice to do a charter extension
... so if the team doesn't want to, the director can choose not to

dsinger: formally the Chair sends a request to Team who sends to Director who sends to AC saying it happened

jeff: it actually happens that Team tells Chair to work on Charter
... and then triggers an extension process

SteveZ: are you ok w/ me closing it as "process is currently working"?

dsinger: if we had a problematic WG, we could close it because the process has teeth

<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if there's a concern about things that are less web oriented

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment about conflating "charter extensions" with credibility

jeff: there's the super groups issue in the background
... how should a charter extension be organized for groups we know will live for some time
... that's still very much an open issue

dsinger: the habit of forcing everyone to re-read the damn charter
... to force people to think about whether something is good

glazou: you mention the super groups
... one of the key things about super groups is that they don't change scope
... only deliverables
... that's why i was mentioning permanent extensions
... do you think it will be an issue for them?

<dsinger> if deliverables change, then we MUST do charter review

<dsinger> this is ‘extend with no change of anything’

SteveZ: I don't see the director giving charter extensions over and over

glazou: i know that's the current state of things
... but, super groups are special
... there's an IPR issue
... a mandatory AC review each time we do this
... we may have to revisit this issue

SteveZ: let's do supergroups discussion in that context

RESOLUTION: closed, there are sufficient checks and balances

SteveZ: waiting input from chaals for the other two items
... i'll send the minutes from last week
... and fix up today's
... thanks to the scribes

[ Adjourned ]

<glazou> pretty good job timeless

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

02 Sep 2014

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output