Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 18 Nov 2014

<trackbot> Date: 18 November 2014

<scribe> scribe: timeless

SteveZ: one of my actions was to create issue-148

issue-148?

<trackbot> issue-148 -- Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148

scribe: i take it judy didn't make it for this meeting

jeff: i spoke to her
... both about the idea of using a Member only IG
... and two other ideas
... she was not very enamored by these proposals
... my judgement that there is an overwhelming view from the Process TF
... that we shouldn't have Coord-Groups just for the sake of one group
... but, Judy is providing Strong and Accurate input, of the form "i have something that is working now
... i sent an email, intended for chaals
... asking him if we would meet one-on-one with Judy
... my reply failed to be directed to chaals
... and SteveZ replied
... she's open minded to work on this
... so, the next step is SteveZ, chaals to work with judy on this

mike: what position does Judy have to veto process changes
... if WGs who are in her Coord-Group want to continue meeting, they can have this meeting
... we're saying it doesn't have to be in the process document

jeff: we don't have to negotiate with judy
... when we did Process-2014, we had an open dialog on process changes
... we had two LCs
... in the second LC to Process-2014, there were no objections what-so-ever
... but when we sent it to AC Review

Action-39 and Action-40

jeff: when one person formally objected to the document, after not having objected to the previous reading of the exact same document
... we spent two months on it
... If we receive input prior to AC review, it behooves us to try to find common ground
... to avoid formal objections
... why would we want to send a document which might have formal objections
... should we do it

mike: so, w3c would formally object?
... this is taking consensus too far

SteveZ: i don't think jeff is saying that
... i think he's saying a little more effort is worth it

mike: i don't object to trying

SteveZ: i happen to agree with mike
... we don't have to put this in the process, she can create a group

mike: and if she's looking for a Club to beat these people, i don't think we should put it in the process

jeff: i don't think that's fair mike
... i think we probably need to do more coordination (rather than less) between groups
... we have an entire AB project led by Virginie on coordination
... we have an extremely active thread on process, started by annevk on coordinating security
... quite the contrary, it's very appropriate that we find better ways to coordinate in W3C
... just as coordination has always been part of the process
... if we had a better idea of how to do coordination, it should be part of the process
... the problem we have here is that Coordination-Groups has fallen into disuse

mike: i'd agree,
... but chaals's argument is that Coordination-Groups burden the Process without helping
... who's in this?

SteveZ: WAI

mike: the pushback on Coordination done in that group
... is "it's not early and technical enough"
... it's procedural, and not part of technical consensus building
... the fact that it's a Coordination-Group is part of the problem
... there isn't an incentive for people with the skillset to engage
... they, instead have a heavy handed objection process
... e.g. the formal objection to LONGDESC=
... i think we have to do it better, rather than doing the same thing
... i agree trying to find some solution w/ judy
... but i'd like to try to tweak the culture

SteveZ: i attended a P&F WG joint w/ CSS, and janina made the point that they're trying to do more reaching out

jeff: to your point that WAI Coord-Group should do things better, i think that's a fair point
... by all means, if SteveZ + chaals talk w/ judy, let's use that to make the coordination better
... you also mentioned, mike, which seems to be unrelated
... you mentioned a formal objection to LONGDESC=
... that seems separate
... it's coming out by HTML WG
... led by several people, including PaulC (Microsoft)
... there was WG consensus
... Apple objected
... you may have some opinions about the objection
... but i don't know what that has to do w/ WAI

mike: it wasn't an accessibility issue in another spec
... it was an objection about a spec for one attribute that is only about accessibility
... fine, i accept the point

SteveZ: that's as much as we can do on that item
... i'd prefer to leave both action items open, i believe jeff+i are still in the process of talking
... i'll close XX, or at least move to pending-review
... jeff, you sent a note about the AB resolution
... that the modification of the election procedures
... the sentence is hard to parse, but

<jeff> [Jeff confesses that the English could have been much clearer]

<SteveZ> RESOLUTION: AB input to W3C process CG is that the modification to election procedures that in the case of a change of affiliation instead of requiring immediate resignation, we should allow the people to serve until the next regular election

SteveZ: that's the resolution the AB passed
... it's in support of the text that i circulated
... i said i'd send out a CfC
... i forgot to do that
... i can action myself to send out the CfC on the text i proposed
... after i proposed it, there was no further discussion on the ML
... is that what you were looking for jeff?

jeff: yes, we weren't trying to propose text
... to show support for the proposal
... there's also a proposal from DKA
... to have 2 people from the same org
... at this time, the AB does not have consensus, and hasn't taken a position on such a broader proposal

SteveZ: that was my understanding, from the process list as well

<SteveZ> ACTION: SteveZ to Send CfC on text proposed to fix the election process when a change of affliliation occurs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Send cfc on text proposed to fix the election process when a change of affliliation occurs [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-25].

3. Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

SteveZ: i sent out a bunch of text
... jeff pointed out that i had left out a pointer for a place to make announcements
... which we've created in the mean-time

<SteveZ> Chaals sent: Of the proposals in that mail I support numbers 1, 2, and the first proposed variant of 4, but oppose proposal 3. With regards to naming the review list, I'm ambivalent but if we do it I prefer Steve's formulation.

SteveZ: i sent out proposed text
... i asked chaals why he opposed 3
... i don't think i heard back on that
... i think jeff was fine

<SteveZ> Issue-144 Suggested updates to clarify Wide Review in Process2014 1-4 are in here

SteveZ: i propose we adopt 1, 2, and the first version of 4
... and then chaals can be more clear about his problem with 3
... any objections?

[ None ]

SteveZ: then, chaals supported my suggestion to add

<SteveZ> Proposal: adopt the text I proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0132.html

"have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example, using public-review-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org>) and ..."

SteveZ: and chaals was in favor of that
... any objections?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: "have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example, using public-review-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org>) and ..." will be added

Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

SteveZ: chaals sent out text
... and he created an issue (145)

issue-145?

<trackbot> issue-145 -- Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145

jeff: my view is that, we should close issue-145
... since this is really issue 140
... issue 140 is clean up all references to team
... i don't think we need different issues for the parts of 140 that chaals wants to solve, and the parts chaals doesn't want to solve

SteveZ: i think i agree w/ you
... part of cleaning up the definition of team in team in 2.2
... means making sure all other references to Team make sense, given that cleanup
... in some cases, it may make sense by eliminating references
... but others may require work

jeff: that sounds better than how i phrased it

SteveZ: the text chaals proposed on nov 12
... has team consists of director, ceo, interns, staff, fellows
... director may delegate to others in team for roles described in document
... and administrative bits are team only, subject to host oversight
... and host institutions (link) to FAQ for w3c
... that's the entirety of the change
... it implies that Director may delegate
... it doesn't say that anyone else can delegate

jeff: i'm trying to remember what the current document says on delegation
... i don't want to make changes in delegation rules

<Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to ask if we had something saying that anyone can delegate

Josh_Soref: we need an issue for process-2016 on delegation by anyone

jeff: the current document says "these individuals (director, chair, ceo) may delegate responsibility"

SteveZ: the text on the team consists of needs text on delegation for director + ceo

jeff: it's possible that chaals found nothing in process indicating roles for ceo to delegate
... i don't know if there's text in the document w/ formal roles for the ceo to delegate

SteveZ: that was the main thing that i found
... he also did not include the line that the host orgs aren't members of w3c
... i don't know that that's necessary or not

jeff: i think if the Process CG finds it in its heart not to include this line
... i think there's some benefit to the ambiguity
... ralph mentions that there have been times when host institutions have wanted to assign a W3C Fellow to work for W3C for a year
... but since the right to assign a W3C Fellow is a Member privilege ...

SteveZ: makes sense
... I assume that it was done on the principle that Host organizations could just assign people
... but Hosts may want to do that
... AC is big enough that hosts voting/not voting isn't going to make a difference
... I think the text for 2.2 is probably fine as long as we answer the question about Director and CEO question
... and we just answered the question about Hosts are not members -- we don't need to say that
... i think the text is fine
... and we just need to go update the rest of the document
... i interpreted 145 as doing that, but when i looked at the text, it's not what it does
... i think it needs to be done as part of 140
... jeff, you suggested closing 145

jeff: i wouldn't close it in chaals's absence

SteveZ: issue-148

4. Issue-148: Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document

<SteveZ> w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document [Process Document]

<jeff> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0133.html

issue-148?

<trackbot> issue-148 -- Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148

"especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html">liaisons</a>,"

SteveZ: any objections to the proposal?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: incorporate proposal for issue-148

SteveZ: i think it's time to get an updated draft of the document
... i'm not sure we have something to meet about until then
... depending on the conversation w/ judy

jeff: we have judy, and cleanup for issue-140

Agenda mails

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask about where the agenda is being sent

SteveZ: i sent a note to jeremy
... i can send messages to the list, but i can't send agendas
... it seems to get forwarded, but not reliably

jeff: you have complicated agendas w/ charts
... can you send a simple text version?

SteveZ: yeah, i was thinking that might be the problem
... it's not getting archived, but it's getting forwarded
... my other messages get archived + forwarded

jeff: i think jeremy should work on your issue to be done right
... but i'd encourage the chair to find a workaround in the interim
... so the entire w3process TF can find the process

SteveZ: i agree
... i don't know who it's going to
... you go it, chaals got it

jeff: but you're sending it to the AB
... perhaps that's where it's going?

SteveZ: oh, interesting
... i'll try resending a simpler message of the agenda we followed this morning, and point to the minutes, and see if that one works

jeff: on the question of other things to meet about
... we also need to review specific language for change of affiliation

SteveZ: there is specific language proposed, that will go out, probably today

jeff: at the next call, we can review that
... also, if the chair is of the opinion that we're reaching the end of issues for Process-2015
... then we should start thinking about our schedule for Wide-Review of the document to finish it up
... and then also assemble the larger issues for Process-2016

SteveZ: yes
... from both what percolated up, and from the time, and where we are
... i think we are in fact running out of issues that need to be addressed for 2015

jeff: are we done with errata management?

SteveZ: no
... we sent a message to PSIG
... PSIG sent it out
... i can send a reminder to Scott saying that we'd like a reply ASAP (by Mid Jan)
... schedule is to have a complete document for AB Feb 11-12 F2F

jeff: we probably want to send it ample time in advance
... Mid Jan
... telling scott we anticipate having a completed document by Mid Jan
... so he needs comments in by beginning of Jan, to give us time to respond

SteveZ: i agree w/ that schedule
... i think chaals thinks it's too soon
... but given last year
... it's never too soon

jeff: it isn't a question of too soon
... chaals is saying we have more time, and we could shoe-horn more stuff into 2015
... but, if we have no more issues, there's no need to delay
... i'd rather increase time for Wide-Review
... if have issues, let's get them on the table

<jeff> timeless ++

jeff: if not, let's get it out

SteveZ: thanks Josh for taking the minutes

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end conf

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

18 Nov 2014

Attendees

Contents

Action-39 and Action-40

3. Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

4. Issue-148: Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document

Agenda mails

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output