13:43:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:43:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-irc
13:44:41 <SteveZ> Zakim, list conferences
13:44:41 <Zakim> I see IA_Team()9:00AM, INK_Team()9:00AM, Team_(wpay)13:14Z active
13:44:42 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are Team_(RevCadence)9:00AM, WEBT_TVAPICG()9:00AM
13:54:21 <Jay> Jay has joined #w3process
13:56:09 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
13:58:17 <SteveZ> Zakim, list conferences
13:58:17 <Zakim> I see IA_Team()9:00AM, INK_Team()9:00AM, Team_(wpay)13:14Z, AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM active
13:58:19 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are DPUB_DIGC()10:00AM, Team_(MEET)10:00AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM, Team_(RevCadence)9:00AM, XML_EXI()10:00AM, WEBT_TVAPICG()9:00AM
13:59:02 <SteveZ> Zakim, this is AB_(PROCESS)
13:59:02 <Zakim> ok, SteveZ; that matches AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM
14:00:48 <SteveZ> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4, SteveZ
14:01:10 <SteveZ> Who is ??P4
14:01:25 <Jay> Zakim, I am on the phone throuhg Keio, Jay
14:01:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I am on the phone throuhg Keio, Jay', Jay
14:01:47 <jeff> zakim, ?? is Jay
14:01:47 <Zakim> +Jay; got it
14:01:51 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
14:03:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:04:03 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #w3process
14:04:21 <SteveZ> Zakim, IPcaller is Fantasai
14:04:21 <Zakim> +Fantasai; got it
14:04:48 <Zakim> +Jeff
14:06:57 <SteveZ> Agenda: 1.	Review Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open  2.	Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C This is a relatively narrow issue. For reasons of process and practice, W3C working groups do not necessarily issue errata in an expeditious fashion. We should fix the W3C Process so that it encourages groups to consistently and expeditiously issue errata. There are other related topics, such as where the errata sh[CUT]
14:09:56 <fantasai> Scribe: fantasai
14:10:53 <fantasai> jeff: Wrt living standards, one of the things hixie has regularly raised, a fair issue, is that standards developed through W3C Process tend to get out of date because Web tech is a living technology and things get changed almost daily.
14:11:00 <fantasai> jeff: That's a problem for the approach that we have.
14:11:11 <fantasai> jeff: In my mind, fact that there are constant changes fall into a few buckets.
14:11:17 <fantasai> jeff: One bucket is "here's a new feature".
14:11:23 <fantasai> jeff: In my mind, that's not errata, that's different.
14:11:30 <fantasai> jeff: Just need to move from levels faster
14:11:31 <SteveZ> RESOLVED: Close Action 26 as completed by message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0133.html
14:11:37 <fantasai> jeff: Also changes faster that are more fairly called errata
14:11:44 <fantasai> jeff: tweaks or slight enhancements or corrections
14:11:48 <fantasai> jeff: for things that happen today
14:11:58 <fantasai> s/happen today/in the spec/
14:12:11 <fantasai> jeff: My impression is that the critique on how WGs handle errata is correct
14:12:15 <fantasai> jeff: It's not done frequently enough
14:12:39 <fantasai> jeff: Charles comments in his email is that WGs should do things more regularly, Process is not the right place. Can't write rules that ensure ppl work hard.
14:12:43 <fantasai> jeff: I disagree with that.
14:12:53 <fantasai> jeff: It is an issue about what WGs should do more regularly
14:13:02 <fantasai> jeff: We should enhance the process to make sure we have more consistent focus on this
14:13:18 <fantasai> jeff: For example, a potential solution for WGs who have already reduced specs and are still in operation
14:13:24 <fantasai> jeff: than for WGs that have terminated
14:13:37 <fantasai> jeff: For active WGs, you could put in a requirement that they put in a quarterly or monthly call for errata
14:13:44 <fantasai> jeff: To make sure that this is done as expeditiously as possible
14:13:51 <fantasai> jeff: I don't know whether monthly or quarterly is possible
14:14:00 <fantasai> jeff: But would like to offer that for this CG to discuss
14:14:19 <jeff> Fantasai: In my experience there are several problems
14:14:43 <jeff> ... Biggest: They are in a separate physical document.
14:14:56 <jeff> ... so they are not noticed by people
14:15:13 <jeff> ... they are not in the spec because they have not gone through testing, AC review, etc.
14:15:15 <jeff> ... so they are not REC level
14:15:23 <jeff> ... so the spec is out of date.
14:15:32 <jeff> ... solution needs to be to fold errata into document
14:15:43 <jeff> ... so uptodate spec can be published regularly
14:15:58 <jeff> ... if REC process is needed, we can distinguish errata from actual text
14:16:16 <jeff> ... To meet both requirements, should have updated REC with diff marks
14:16:29 <jeff> ... "we want to make these changes but not gone through entire process"
14:16:38 <jeff> ... need disposition of comments, etc., as well
14:16:51 <jeff> ... need those actually in document.
14:17:04 <jeff> ... then they are more maintainable and more usable by readers
14:17:06 <jeff> q+
14:17:15 <Mike> Mike has joined #w3process
14:17:23 <jeff> ... alternatively can fold in changes and make separate list of what the changes are
14:17:58 <jeff> ... or allow WG to use both (folded in when they decide; a list before they decide)
14:18:14 <jeff> ... this is why CSS 2.1 has not been published
14:18:16 <jeff> ... ED more up to date
14:18:23 <Mike> +1 to most of what Elika said, especially about gettig errata folded in regularly / expeditiously
14:18:32 <jeff> ... make tests, implementation reports
14:18:46 <jeff> ... which we should do anyway - but long cycle
14:18:52 <jeff> ... need to wait for implementation
14:19:07 <jeff> ... but can't publish new draft due to REC hurdle.
14:19:11 <Mike> q?
14:19:17 <jeff> ... Example:
14:19:28 <Mike> q+
14:19:36 <fantasai> http://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#changes
14:19:48 <Zakim> + +1.416.481.aaaa
14:19:58 <jeff> ... Folded in all changes (since CR document)
14:19:59 <timeless> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:19:59 <Zakim> +timeless; got it
14:20:05 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:20:05 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:20:12 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call
14:20:12 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', timeless
14:20:13 <jeff> ... have a list of changes
14:20:14 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
14:20:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jay, SteveZ, Mike_Champion, Fantasai, Jeff, timeless (muted)
14:20:32 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:20:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:20:36 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:20:37 <SteveZ> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:20:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jay, SteveZ, Mike_Champion, Fantasai, Jeff, timeless (muted)
14:21:18 <jeff> ... this would give us an update of the spec right in the document
14:21:37 <jeff> ... would still need implementations, etc.
14:21:40 <SteveZ> q?
14:22:30 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
14:23:14 <fantasai> jeff: I like fantasai's idea
14:23:29 <fantasai> jeff: Different than what I was thinking about
14:23:38 <fantasai> jeff: I want to be very careful about how we implement fantasai's idea
14:23:42 <fantasai> jeff: Idea I was mentioning
14:24:03 <fantasai> jeff: [..] was a quick bandaid we could get in time for 2015 version of process
14:24:11 <fantasai> jeff: If we could get fantasai's idea in as well, that would be fantastic
14:24:17 <fantasai> jeff: want to be a little bit careful
14:24:24 <fantasai> jeff: I'm not sure that the terms are sufficiently well-defined
14:24:33 <timeless> meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
14:24:38 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:24:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:24:39 <fantasai> jeff: If we take the current spec, and we start amending it with all of our new ideas
14:24:44 <fantasai> jeff: not just the errata
14:24:51 <fantasai> jeff: then of course we've moved into a full living standard model
14:24:55 <fantasai> jeff: which is kindof okay
14:25:00 <fantasai> jeff: but we just have to know what we're doing
14:25:01 <timeless> s/Who is ??P4//
14:25:03 <fantasai> jeff: and how it's working
14:25:09 <fantasai> jeff: So if I have a CSS3 module that has gone to REC
14:25:14 <fantasai> jeff: then I start working on CSS4 module
14:25:21 <fantasai> jeff: then simultaneously I'm enhancing the CSS3 module with errata
14:25:42 <fantasai> jeff: but also I'm putting new ideas into CSS3
14:25:54 <fantasai> fantasai: I was talking only about actual errata
14:26:03 <timeless> Zakim, mute fantasai
14:26:03 <Zakim> Fantasai should now be muted
14:26:19 <fantasai> jeff: start to talk about errata, but talk about changes
14:26:27 <fantasai> jeff: concerned that bleeding from errata to any kind of changes
14:26:32 <timeless> Zakim, who is making noise?
14:26:43 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveZ (10%), Jeff (47%)
14:26:45 <fantasai> jeff: do chairs and wgs, are they sufficiently clear on the differences between the two that we can bring them so closely together?
14:26:50 <timeless> Zakim, mute SteveZ
14:26:50 <Zakim> SteveZ should now be muted
14:26:58 <jeff> ack je
14:26:59 <fantasai> jeff: Are we sure that ppl won't bleed broader changes into the draft?
14:27:20 <timeless> q+ fantasai to answer that
14:27:22 <fantasai> Mike: I agree with a lot of what fantasai and jeff said
14:27:33 <fantasai> Mike: Think it's very important to get something about errata into the 2015 Process document
14:27:46 <fantasai> Mike: Clearly there does get tangled up with larger issue of living standards
14:27:57 <timeless> ack Mike
14:28:00 <fantasai> Mike: Important to distinguish errata, which fold into published spec regularly and frequently
14:28:17 <fantasai> Mike: that are outright errors, that couldn't logically change WGs or Directors decisions
14:28:25 <fantasai> Mike: I think that is what we need to clearly and quickly fix
14:28:48 <fantasai> Mike: Some exhortation that a WG needs to make this a high priority, and if they don't do it they risk losing the charter to own that space
14:29:07 <fantasai> Mike: The other category we have to distinguish is errors in the original spec, but second thoughts ppl have esp. as they implement
14:29:18 <timeless> s/decisions/decisions -- things that could confuse implementers/
14:29:24 <fantasai> Mike: Hixie's model is that if the impls move in a different way than the spec anticipated, then spec should change to match implementations
14:29:29 <fantasai> Mike: I'm not ready to go there yet
14:29:37 <fantasai> Mike: We need to make it hard to say that we should've done it differently
14:29:44 <timeless> q+ to note that Acid3 wagged the dog and we eventually unwagged the dog
14:29:55 <fantasai> Mike: There are a lot of ppl, implementations aren't coming out every weeks, that are following spec as written
14:30:11 <fantasai> Mike: W3C should issue REC as written, should be the right way to do it unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
14:30:23 <fantasai> Mike: Changes that sensible ppl would agree are errors
14:30:34 <fantasai> Mike: New interpretations should be candidates for next revision
14:30:36 <SteveZ> Zakim, unmute me
14:30:36 <Zakim> SteveZ should no longer be muted
14:30:39 <fantasai> Mike: And then new features
14:30:45 <fantasai> Mike: Should clearly separate errors from new stuff
14:30:54 <fantasai> Mike: Should think about how to handle living standards, taking feedback from community
14:30:56 <SteveZ> Q+
14:31:01 <SteveZ> q?
14:31:03 <fantasai> Mike: If implementor says spec isn't right way to do it
14:31:05 <fantasai> 1+
14:31:07 <fantasai> sorry
14:31:08 <fantasai> q+
14:31:15 <timeless> ack fantasai
14:31:17 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to answer that and to
14:31:35 <jeff> fantasai: In terms of Jeff's question - broader changes into text
14:31:45 <jeff> ... CSS is pretty clear about what is a new feature
14:32:03 <jeff> ... CSS fixes both clear errors and information from implementations
14:32:15 <jeff> ... In the latter case, CSS has a long discussion with implementors
14:32:32 <jeff> ... Could be spec is right; implementors are right; or a third solution.
14:33:01 <jeff> ... If we have a conformant implementation of a Level 2 and a Level 3 spec, they should agree on the features they both support
14:33:14 <jeff> ... If we add new features to L3, we won't backport to 2.1
14:33:38 <jeff> ... If in L3 we clarify things from 2.1 - we backport it into 2.1.
14:33:49 <jeff> ... helps L3, L2 interop
14:34:11 <timeless> ack me
14:34:12 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to note that Acid3 wagged the dog and we eventually unwagged the dog
14:34:32 <fantasai> timeless: hixie made a claim that no, we just always adapt what implementations do
14:34:36 <fantasai> timeless: but that's not actually true.
14:34:47 <fantasai> timeless: Acid3 had a bug, and implementors all changed to match the test
14:34:59 <fantasai> timeless: So spec changed to match implementers
14:35:07 <fantasai> timeless: But then ppl were all like, this is wrong
14:35:10 <fantasai> timeless: so spec changed back
14:35:31 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:35:31 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:35:31 <fantasai> timeless: So it's not always the case that hixie's spec copies state of implementations
14:35:36 <timeless> q?
14:35:43 <SteveZ> 7.7.1 Errata Management  Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care of a Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group charter generally allows time for work after publication of a Recommendation. In this Process Document, the term "erratum" (plural "errata") refers to any class of mistake, from mere editorial to a serious error that may affect the conformance with the Recommendation by software or content (e.g[CUT]
14:35:49 <fantasai> SteveZ: Want to note what the document already says today [paste]
14:35:54 <timeless> ack SteveZ
14:36:14 <fantasai> SteveZ: It does say that WGs MUST track errata on an errata page
14:36:18 <fantasai> SteveZ: So there is a MUST
14:36:33 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think Jeff's point, that we began the discussion with, that needs clarification on how frequently
14:36:38 <fantasai> SteveZ: etc.
14:36:49 <timeless> q+ to note that i sent feedback on the spec asking about when a WG ceases to exist, who is responsible for tracking errata
14:36:53 <fantasai> SteveZ: Second point we've had in this dicussion is that errata is not new features
14:37:18 <fantasai> SteveZ: That's important because the patent, PSIG, and FAQ say that maintenance -- anything other than adding new features -- can be done without changing the patent commitments
14:37:33 <jeff> q+ I agree that errata should not include new features, but the process document doesn't seem to say it
14:37:40 <fantasai> SteveZ: fantasai and Jeff have also said it, boundary between new features and other changes is the boundary of errata vs new version
14:37:51 <jeff> q+ to agree that errata should not include new features, but the process document doesn't seem to say it
14:37:58 <fantasai> SteveZ: Lastly, the current definition sortof talks about an errata page, which is why we do it the way we do it
14:38:02 <fantasai> SteveZ: That's getting in the way
14:38:18 <fantasai> SteveZ: So that paragraph should be modified to allow more flexibility in the way that errata are handled
14:38:30 <fantasai> SteveZ: So that we can experiment with the kinds of things fantasai was talking about
14:38:52 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
14:38:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jay, SteveZ, Mike_Champion, Fantasai, Jeff, timeless (muted)
14:38:56 <timeless> q?
14:39:00 <fantasai> SteveZ: Process should say what errata are, how frequently they are maintained, and that they are appropriately connected to the appropriate sections of the spec
14:39:05 <jeff> q+ jj to talk about PubRules
14:39:06 <SteveZ> q?
14:39:11 <timeless> ack me
14:39:12 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to note that i sent feedback on the spec asking about when a WG ceases to exist, who is responsible for tracking errata
14:39:32 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:39:32 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:39:49 <timeless> ack jeff
14:39:49 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to agree that errata should not include new features, but the process document doesn't seem to say it
14:40:02 <fantasai> jeff: Interesting quoted the Process document on errata
14:40:14 <fantasai> jeff: Interesting that you commented that we all agree on what constitues errata
14:40:31 <fantasai> jeff: E.g. Process says errata could include serious error that could affect conformance
14:40:46 <fantasai> jeff: So I'm clarifying difference between error and new feature
14:40:59 <fantasai> jeff: At least to say that correcting error is fine, but new features not
14:41:06 <jeff> ack jj
14:41:06 <Zakim> jj, you wanted to talk about PubRules
14:41:07 <timeless> ack jj
14:41:31 <fantasai> jeff: I also noticed that when fantasai was talking about more user-friendly errat page...
14:41:35 <fantasai> jeff: Reference here to pubrules
14:41:48 <fantasai> jeff: As we entertain fantasai's change, have to include Ian and Ted and other ppl who watch over pubrules
14:42:07 <fantasai> jeff: Don't think they'd have a reason to dislike her proposal, but need to include them in discussion
14:42:14 <fantasai> SteveZ: In Section 7 we define a category of changes
14:42:35 <fantasai> SteveZ: The third category allows things that can change conformance, but not new features
14:42:50 <fantasai> SteveZ: There's 2 kinds of substanive
14:42:55 <jeff> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#substantive-change
14:42:58 <fantasai> SteveZ: First kind was an errata, second kind wasn't
14:43:26 <fantasai> jeff: So, you're saying this is already particularly clear
14:43:39 <fantasai> jeff: Since we don't have a problem with any of the first 3 types of changes under errata, not #4
14:44:00 <fantasai> jeff: If that's the intent, then I guess we could just make it explicit by referring back to this section
14:44:05 <fantasai> SteveZ: That's exactly what I was saying
14:44:14 <timeless> q+ to note that we should refer by reference-tag and not by dotted-number
14:44:34 <fantasai> SteveZ: So somebody should redraft Section 7.7.1
14:44:44 <fantasai> jeff: Charles said he would update the spec based on the minutes
14:45:20 <fantasai> SteveZ: First thing is, we would like to change the MUST do errata to MUST do errata on a timely basis
14:45:28 <fantasai> SteveZ: Jeff, you asked that it be a regular activity of the WG
14:45:42 <Mike> What does "regular" mean?  once a year minimum?
14:45:51 <fantasai> jeff: For WGs that are responsible, they should have a call for errata, and maybe quarterly makes sense
14:46:00 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think more frequently makes sense, but quarterly is better than never
14:46:08 <Mike> Quarterly is good!
14:46:13 <fantasai> SteveZ: Let's suggest that MUST consider updating errata on a quarterly basis
14:46:22 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
14:46:22 <Zakim> timeless should no longer be muted
14:46:25 <fantasai> SteveZ: Any objection to that?
14:46:48 <jeff> fantasai; Quarterly is fine if there is a reasonable way to update
14:46:53 <jeff> s/;/:/
14:46:57 <fantasai> timeless: Text should encourage more frequently than quarterly
14:47:04 <fantasai> SteveZ: "should be no longer than"
14:47:11 <fantasai> s/longer/less frequently/
14:47:43 <fantasai> SteveZ: Second point was that text should be clarified to say that kinds of changes that are errata are the first 3 categories of changes, not #4 (new features)
14:48:21 <fantasai> SteveZ: Third change is, with the cooperation of the people that do pubrules, the reference to how errata are expressed should be updated to allow experimentation with inline errata
14:48:25 <jeff> q+
14:48:49 <timeless> q+ to ask about who manages errata when no WG exists w/ managing it in the charter
14:48:53 <timeless> ack me
14:48:53 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to note that we should refer by reference-tag and not by dotted-number and to ask about who manages errata when no WG exists w/ managing it in the charter
14:49:01 <timeless> q+ to ask about who manages errata when no WG exists w/ managing it in the charter
14:49:03 <timeless> ack me
14:49:03 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask about who manages errata when no WG exists w/ managing it in the charter
14:49:25 <fantasai> fantasai: i think you just need to say that errata should be part of the document, but called out so that it's clear what is in REC and what has yet to complete process to REC
14:50:00 <fantasai> timeless asks about RECs that are no longer actively developed by a WG
14:50:18 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think the idea is to create WGs to maintain REC
14:50:30 <fantasai> SteveZ: although it might be difficult to staff such a WG
14:50:30 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:50:30 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:50:40 <fantasai> SteveZ: Decided to only tackle active WGs for now, since easier
14:50:54 <fantasai> jeff: For the record, while I agree with timeless's point, I'd rather apply the 80/20 rule
14:51:05 <fantasai> jeff: If I address this only for the supergroups, I'd be pretty happy camper
14:51:09 <timeless> ack jeff
14:51:19 <fantasai> jeff: Though wouldn't be disappointed if someone came up with a solution for the other 20%!
14:51:21 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:51:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:51:28 <fantasai> jeff: Wrt folding errata into the document
14:51:46 <fantasai> jeff: Before updating Process document with fantasai's idea, we should write it up separately and cleanly
14:51:57 <fantasai> jeff: And get pubrules teams' reaction first.
14:52:19 <timeless> s/teams'/team's/
14:52:49 <fantasai> SteveZ: Just need someone to write it up
14:52:54 <fantasai> jeff: Really like fantasai's first idea a lot
14:53:02 <fantasai> jeff: I'd like to get that as a compact, self-contained proposal
14:53:11 <fantasai> jeff: Run it by pubrules, and if ppl generally comfortable, plug it in
14:53:26 <fantasai> ACTION fantasai to write up proposal for inline errata
14:53:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Write up proposal for inline errata [on Elika Etemad - due 2014-10-21].
14:53:45 <jeff> q?
14:53:46 <fantasai> SteveZ: Okay, 5min left
14:53:54 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think that covers most of what we discussed on item 141
14:53:58 <fantasai> SteveZ: made good progress
14:54:05 <fantasai> SteveZ: Would like to have short overview of wide review discussion
14:54:17 <fantasai> SteveZ: It got locked in on small piece of discussion before ready to do that
14:54:32 <fantasai> SteveZ: That's why I forwarded fantasai's notes to the distribution list
14:54:38 <fantasai> SteveZ: Art had done a CFC for creation of a mailing list
14:54:42 <jeff> q+ to express the frustrations of Chairs
14:54:48 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think comments on mailing list are useful
14:54:58 <timeless> i/Review Open Action/topic: Agenda/
14:55:02 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think it's focused too much on one way that might be useful that wide review has occurred
14:55:12 <Zakim> +Keio (was Guest P19 7762)
14:55:13 <Zakim> +Keio
14:55:23 <fantasai> SteveZ: My concern is that we not get locked into a particular solution, with assumption that if you did that you necessarily met wide review
14:55:29 <timeless> i/Wrt living standards/topic: Integrating Feedback/
14:55:41 <fantasai> SteveZ: That was not the intent of the wide review requirement, and other methods of meeting wide review should be allowed
14:55:49 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think ? ... team looking for wide review
14:55:57 <Jay_> Jay_ has joined #w3process
14:55:58 <timeless> s/1+//
14:56:04 <timeless> s/sorry//
14:56:04 <fantasai> SteveZ: E.g. if you had comments coming from many places, then good indication of wide review
14:56:12 <fantasai> SteveZ: Comments only from implementors, indicates not wide review
14:56:20 <fantasai> SteveZ: Think we need a longer discussion before deciding what to do about things
14:56:20 <jeff> q?
14:56:28 <fantasai> SteveZ: With that intor would be glad to hear from others
14:56:36 <jeff> ack je
14:56:36 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to express the frustrations of Chairs
14:56:43 <fantasai> jeff: I think that we have to differentiate between theory space and practice space
14:56:43 <timeless> i/Errata Management Tracking/topic: Adjusting Errata Management Tracking section of process/
14:57:02 <fantasai> jeff: From theory space, what's currently in document is great, and certainly gives all flexibility you need to achieve diverse means of wide review
14:57:13 <fantasai> jeff: I think what chairs are saying is that newfangled process, don't make my life harder
14:57:29 <fantasai> jeff: As I try to implement it, you've made my life harder, I used to know how to get wide review, it was LCWD, now what do I do
14:57:34 <timeless> i/wanted to talk about PubRules/Topic: PubRules/
14:57:34 <fantasai> jeff: Give me the simple approche.
14:57:48 <fantasai> jeff: I may not do it exactly that way, but I want one way to go and do it and i know I'm done
14:57:55 <fantasai> jeff: Art's proposal was to have one way that it could get done
14:58:09 <timeless> s/approche/approach/
14:58:12 <fantasai> jeff: Not to require that it be done that way, but demonstrate that it can be done, can be done easily, could also be done other ways
14:58:23 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:58:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:58:30 <fantasai> jeff: I think having in Process 2015 a safe harbor approach, if you do this, you're done, that's a good idea
14:58:48 <fantasai> SteveZ: Whole intent of wide review definition was to *not* have a safe harbor approach, because that wasn't leading to good wide reviews
14:58:58 <timeless> s|i/wanted to talk about PubRules/Topic: PubRules/||
14:59:02 <fantasai> SteveZ: That's my main concern, they'll think "if I do this I'm done", no you're not done. That's the key point
14:59:15 <fantasai> jeff: Then I invite you to come to Chairs Breakfast Tuesday at TPAC
14:59:29 <fantasai> jeff: We need more dialog
14:59:31 <timeless> i/wanted to talk about PubRules/Topic: PubRules/
14:59:38 <fantasai> SteveZ: I accept your invitation
14:59:47 <fantasai> SteveZ: Also suggest having a breakout on wide review during breakout period
14:59:50 <fantasai> SteveZ: As a separate topic
14:59:57 <fantasai> SteveZ: My intent is also have breakout on Proces 2015
15:00:07 <fantasai> SteveZ: 2 breakouts
15:00:13 <jeff> http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/
15:00:30 <fantasai> SteveZ: Thanks everyone. Will continue next week
15:00:41 <fantasai> SteveZ: Week after is TPAC
15:00:46 <fantasai> SteveZ: Anything else?
15:00:49 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
15:00:49 <fantasai> SteveZ: Meeting adjourned.
15:00:56 <timeless> i/7.7.1 Errata/topic: Adjusting Errata Management Tracking section of process/
15:00:59 <Zakim> -Jeff
15:01:06 <Zakim> -Fantasai
15:01:12 <Zakim> -Keio
15:01:14 <Zakim> -timeless
15:02:07 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:02:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:02:40 <timeless> trackbot, end meeting
15:02:40 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:02:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been SteveZ, Jay, Mike_Champion, Fantasai, Jeff, +1.416.481.aaaa, timeless, Keio
15:02:47 <Zakim> -SteveZ
15:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
15:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:02:50 <timeless> s/+1.416.481.aaaa//
15:03:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:03:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-irc
15:03:04 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:03:07 <timeless> RRSAgent, bye
15:03:11 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:03:14 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:03:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:03:15 <timeless> RRSAgent, bye
15:03:15 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:04:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:04:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-irc
15:04:21 <timeless> s/, ,/,/
15:04:27 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:04:30 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:04:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:04:54 <timeless> RRSAgent, bye
15:04:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:05:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:05:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-irc
15:05:22 <timeless> regrets: chaals
15:05:28 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:05:31 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:05:43 <timeless> RRSAgent, bye
15:05:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items