See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 September 2014
<SteveZ_> Unless Chaals is on the call, there does not seem to be much point in having a meeting because the open actions are primarly his
<SteveZ_> Jeff said he may miss the meeting
<SteveZ_> I will wait for 2.5 minutes more than quit
<Dsinger_> Ok, Steve and Dave on the phone, who else? Do we have an effective call?
<chaals> [Some idiot from Iberdrola thought they have the right to visit a house and demand documents from anyone they find there, and needed disabusing of the notion]
<Dsinger_> 3 is very small
<chaals> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 09 September 2014
<scribe> scribe: timeless
[ Discussion about chaals needing to review the previous two meetings' minutes ]
CMN: I will review the minutes
and my Action items. I hope to produce a new draft later
tonight.
... want to remove coordination-groups
… I will then propose removing "Good Standing requirements", "Coordination Groups" (since I believe they are redundant with working groups) from the document.
Dsinger_: when is good standing used?
chaals: it's used for voting and attendance
Dsinger_: is it ever used?
SteveZ_: history on good
standing
... we were told by Oracle
... Oracle bought SUN
... unless you had a rule for
... people who don't stay up on issues
... cause discussion on issues to bog down
... because you'd redo the conversations you already had
... so unless you had been involved in the discussions leading
up to vote
... you shouldn't be involved in the vote
... It was used in XSL discussions / votes
... but XSL used Consensus voting instead of majority
voting
... it's not clear to me that it served a useful purpose
... it might have served a useful purpose in HTML
discussions
... but that's another ball game
<chaals> Timeless: I was involved in a recent mobile group which suffered from people coming in and revisiting issues because people hadn't attended meetings where issues were discussed. I wished we had enforced a good standing policy.
<chaals> … A process is useful but it requires someone to actively ensure that it is used. When it is rarely used people are not aware of it or how it works.
<chaals> … If we were to keep it we should encourage chairs to be aware of the when/how/why and encourage them to use it. Otherwise we should drop it.
<chaals> … The group I talked about had many attendees and significant churn, so people would come in and talk about old issues that had already been closed (more than once)
SteveZ_: one reason to drop it
is
... too few chairs wanted to enforce it
... some of the User Members couldn't participate on a regular
basis
... and didn't want their managers to see them as
not-in-good-standing in the working group
... the term became a perjorative
... the main value of user members is they gave you actual
feedback of whether they're working or not
Dsinger_: i think it's fine to enforce it if
DSinger: we can enforce it if we give people time to get into good standing
ZZ: we could change the wording "voting status"
SteveZ_: a lot of groups have gone away from decisions by voting
chaals: there are groups like
webapps that explicitly refuse to use good-standing
... but there are groups that are/could
... choose to insert it into their charter
<Dsinger_> I can certainly think of fields where uninformed people could be problematic
chaals: but they should enforce it both fairly and uniformly
SteveZ_: i agree with you
... i hear you saying that we could define something /like/
good standing in the process document
... and say "there's an option to include this in the charter",
but it's not a requirement
chaals: no. that's not what i'm
saying
... i'm saying "groups may in their charter have additional
rules for eligibility to vote/attend meetings/and the
like"
... "... such rules should be uniformly enforced."
SteveZ_: we have "the charters
may include additional material not in conflict with this
document"
... we have examples there
<Dsinger_> I think it would be more helpful to document it and make it optional
SteveZ_: we could say that "if you have such rules, they should be as if they are in this document"
chaals: documenting rules effectively is a fools errand
Dsinger_: we should provide
enough text that if a group wants to have one
... i think we should have more than a couple of sentences
chaals: i'll make a proposal to the ML
SteveZ_: i want to repeat one
thing timeless said
... the problem he's concerned about
... and the problem that originally prompted it
... was note voting
... but people distracting discussion because they weren't
paying attention
timeless: yes
SteveZ_: having rules to allow
the chair to declare out-of-order
... for discussion would make more sense
chaals: the problem that timeless
identified
... is that new people come into a group and raise an
issue
... this is tricky because
... there are a number of cases, where one person raises an
issue
... they're shouted down
... they leave the group in discust
... another person joins the group, raises the issue, they're
shouted down, they leave the group in discust
... there are a number of examples of this
... good-standing isn't the right tool
... an issue tracker is a better tool
Dsinger_: i agree
SteveZ_: it isn't immediately clear to me that good standing is needed
Dsinger_: good standing is trying
to avoid the issue where you have a number of people who aren't
up to speed on the group, they don't understand the
history/context
... the other example is technical groups where you don't want
people who don't understand the subject-matter
... security/crypto groups
... but people can maintain good standing, and it doesn't help
you there
... people can be disruptive
... the solution is firm chairing and issue tracking
<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to say that there were minutes and resolutions and iirc an issue tracker
SteveZ_: chaals is working on his
action items
... i'm working on mine
Dsinger_: should we have had the whatwg flare up on the w3process list
chaals: unless someone wants to
blacklist whatwg specs a-priori
... i don't think there's anything to do
SteveZ_: Dsinger_, i agree with
you
... chaals has twice said he didn't think this was the right
place
Dsinger_: i raised the same question "i'm not sure what this discussion is doing here"
timeless: +1
SteveZ_: i don't know what ArtB
wanted
... i read through the messages, i still don't know
... chaals, is it ok for me to say "i don't know why this
discussion is going on here"
... the problem is that i don't think there's another list
chaals: i was at a loss to find any relevance to the continuation of the thread
SteveZ_: do we run the risk of closing issue-124 at this meeting
<Dsinger_> Issue-124?
<trackbot> Issue-124 -- Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/124
SteveZ_: that ArtB gets
upset?
... i'd like to close it as irrelevant to the process
<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to say i think the concern is that it was in private
chaals: you can say that the group won't address this
SteveZ_: i'll wait until next week
DSinger: raising inflammatory issues isn't helpful
SteveZ_: no action
... unless there's something else
... i'd propose we adjourn
[ thanks to timeless for scribing ]
[ There is no process call next week due to a conflict with AB meeting ]
trackbot, end meeting
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) Succeeded: s/chaals/scribe/ Succeeded: s/chaals/scribe/ Succeeded: s/SteveZ_/chaals/ Succeeded: s/XX/Dsinger_/ Succeeded: s/YY/DSinger/ Succeeded: s/enforce it/enforce it both fairly and uniformly/ Succeeded: s/chaals/Dsinger_/ Succeeded: s/134/124/ Succeeded: s/chaals/DSinger/ Succeeded: s/QQ/AB meeting/ Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: dsinger, SteveZ, [IPcaller], chaals, timeless Present: dsinger SteveZ [IPcaller] chaals timeless Found Date: 09 Sep 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]