See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 18 November 2014
<scribe> scribe: timeless
<SteveZ> Review Open Action Items (#1)
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
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].
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
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
<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
<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
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/SteveZ/timeless/ Succeeded: s/<timeless> 1./<SteveZ> 1./ Succeeded: s|Review Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open|-> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open Review Open Action Items| Succeeded: s/Review Open Action Items/"Review Open Action Items" (#1)/ FAILED: s/1. // Succeeded: s|s/1. //|| Succeeded: s/1.// Succeeded: s/action-148?// Succeeded: s/Sorry, but action-148 does not exist.// Succeeded: s/action-/issue-/ Succeeded: s/Zakim: nick timeless is josh// Succeeded: s/id'/i'd agree, / Succeeded: s/task by Virginie/AB project led by Virginie/ Succeeded: s/cahnges/changes/ Succeeded: s|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0132.html|| Succeeded: s|1-4 refer to the message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html "Issue-144 Suggested updates to clarify Wide Review in Process2014" 1-4 are in here| Succeeded: s/an issue/an issue (145)/ Succeeded: s/fellow/Fellow/ Succeeded: s/RRSAgent, draft mintues// Succeeded: s|https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0133.html w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document [Process Document]| Succeeded: s/SteveZ: there's a change// Succeeded: s/11/11-12/ Succeeded: s/jan/Jan/ Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: Josh_Soref, Jeff, SteveZ, Jay, Mike_Champion Present: Josh_Soref Jeff SteveZ Jay Mike_Champion Regrets: chaals dsinger Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0139.html Found Date: 18 Nov 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: stevez[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]