See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2014
<scribe> scribe: timeless
jeff: there is an AB meeting in
January, but it's very early
... there's an AB F2F meeting in Japan, Feb 11-12
... there's a March meeting, but that would be tight to the
early May AC meeting
SteveZ: the February AB overlaps w/ CSS in Australia
chaals: i was hoping we were
targeting the March meeting
... to allow some time to go back and forth a bit for late
April
... which would get us to an end of April document for AC
review at the meeting
SteveZ: the tradition is to send
it out for one AC review before the final review
... jeff is talking about a LC before Final Review
... w/ March, we don't have that LC
jeff: it's also difficult to get
full AC attention on a 2 hour phone call
... a F2F meeting allows more time/detail
... to chaals's point, it's possible that the 2 day AB meeting
might raise additional thought that we might bring back to the
TF
... if the Feb meeting is a review of the TF's final
report
... there may be another iteration
... if we do a thorough review in Feb, and do a superficial
review in March, i think that makes sense
chaals: the other point i'd raise
is that it isn't like we've made a lot of changes
... if we're cruising along at the pace we're cruising along
at, I'd be comfortable w/ less review
... We told AC about Acitivities
... I doubt that it's particularly controversial
... the Coordination Group stuff is probably not
controversial
... Good Standing isn't much
... The rest is tweaking
jeff: plus Errata
chaals: if we came to a final conclusion on Errata, I couldn't find it
SteveZ: we haven't yet, it's on the agenda for today
chaals: even so, it's a set of signalled/pre-explained-changes
SteveZ: the last AC review in time for the June AC meeting did produce a substantial number of comments which would have been nice to get sooner
chaals: that's why we produce a
draft for AC
... last year we made a lot more changes than this year
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to partly agree with Chaals
jeff: we haven't made a lot of
changes, not a lot of changes on the docket
... since there aren't a lot of changes, let's just get them
done by Feb
... to chaals 's point, if we hit on something which is really
important and we need more time for that, we can drag it into
March
... but i don't think we will need to, so why drag?
SteveZ: my feeling too
<SteveZ> Open Actions
SteveZ: i did action-40
action-40
<trackbot> action-40 -- Steve Zilles to Look at simplifying coordination groups to meet judy's needs -- due 2014-11-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/40
SteveZ: that's been
completed
... i produced a document for action-43
action-43
<trackbot> action-43 -- Steve Zilles to Will confirm that all musts about the team would be covered by delegating from director -- due 2014-12-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/43
SteveZ: i produced half of action-44
action-44
<trackbot> action-44 -- Steve Zilles to Draft text on coordiantion responsibility for the process document and edit guide to begin collecting best practicres for same -- due 2014-12-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/44
SteveZ: action-43 is
issue-145
... action-40 and action-44 is aresue-129
... issue-140/issue-145 is the Team section
chaals: i changed the CEO from Chair, I couldn't find the resolution of what we'd do for the rest
SteveZ: there wasn't a
resolution, it's on the agenda for today
... i went through and found the various places where
ceo/chief-operating-officer was referenced
... i believe toward the bottom of the list... i listed 3
<jeff> Steve, link to list?
SteveZ: Chair to AB
... Team appoints chair of these (AC Meetings)
... Director / W3C Chair / COO have responsibility for
consensus
chaals: i believe i did those three
jeff: i don't think you changed
COO
... Paragraph 5, first sentence
chaals: yes, i left that, i'm waiting for a resolution on that section
SteveZ: prior team / chair leads
member relations/liaisons
... it was originally envisioned to have different people for
the roles
... that split never happened, and is less likely now
... my recommendation is to drop the split description
... what i thought was useful was Paragraph 2 in section 10 on
Liaisons
... which says that Team
... I said change the liaison management from "team" to "team
under leadership of the CEO" due to requirements on public
communications
... it seemed to me that it made sense to call out a specific
person
... i'd drop any further mention of CEO/COO
... in the Team section, you said you (chaals) didn't change
COO?
... i'd just remove those lines
... as they refer to roles that don't exist
jeff: i thought we'd leave QQQ
chaals: yes, we leave that in
<SteveZ> The e-mail is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0001.html
>> Note: There are responsibilities assigned to the W3C Chair and COO that should be transferred to the CEO with this process revision. These are:
1. The Team appoints the Chair of the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#AB>, who is generally the W3C Chair (change to CEO)
2. The Team appoints the Chair of these [the AC] meetings (generally the W3C Chair<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#def-W3CChair> or Chief Operating Officer) (change to CEO)
3. The Director, W3C Chair, and COO have the role of assessing consensus within the Advisory Committee.(change "W3C Chair and COO" to "CEO"
chaals: those three changes i have done
<dsinger___> Last change: who declares consensus? The 3 have to be unanimous?
2.2 The W3C Team
Paragraph 2, First sentence, "The Team is led by the Director, W3C Chair, and Chief Operating Officer."
Paragraph 4, First sentence, "The W3C Chair leads Member relations, and liaisons<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Liaisons> with other organizations, governments, and the public."
Paragraph 5, First sentence, "The Chief Operating Officer (COO) leads the operation of W3C as an organization: a collection of people, Host institutions<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#hosts>, and processes.
SteveZ: Paragraph 4/5 are there because of the Split of roles, that never actually occurred
jeff: do we still have good standing?
chaals: yes, because we haven't
agreed on director's responsibilities
... good standing is removed, but if the rest of the paragraph
is going, then i can wait
jeff: why remove the paragraph?
chaals: it repeats content already included
SteveZ: w/ one exception, the
director's responsibilities are distributed throughout the
document
... it's the "Lead Technical Architect" line
... that's the one piece not already covered elsewhere
jeff: i'd like to offer an
opinion, and at least discuss w/ Director + AB
... we still have a significant document (10 pages?)
... the role of director in w3c is pretty essential
... i don't think redundancy is bad
... if you think this paragraph is a poor replica
... there are other ways to fix it
... The director is the Lead Technical Architect, among them
are ...
... i think it's important to have something about the Director
early on in the document
SteveZ: the sentence about Lead
Technical Architect is the one thing that isn't elsewhere
... i suggest it remain, but possibly elsewhere
... i strongly believe that duplication leads to confusion
<Dsinger_> Duplication leads to errors when one section is revised and not the other
SteveZ: i'd suggest text that says "his roles are described throughout this document"
jeff: we mention things where
they show up, and in section 2 we say how they fit
... in 2.3 AB we say AB manages evolution of the process
document
... we say it again in section 12
... do we remove that redundancy as well?
... we have them listed in different sections because they're
different perspectives
chaals: yes, absolutely, i want
to remove all of the redundancies
... if this document were 1/3 shorter but not having repeated
sentences saying almost the same thing
... it would be a lot easier for people to look
at/understand
... or identify missing bits
... there are serious Lacuna in this document
... i'd really love to be able to say "any time i can find 2
places that say the same thing, the editor is authorized to
identify one and remove it"
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask who declares consensus
Dsinger_: i mostly agree w/
chaals, about removing redundancy
... but in the case jeff sited, when you're reading about AB,
you need to know about AB
... and when you're reading about Process, you need to know
about it too
... making it shorter and not repeating it is a good goal, but
not hard-and-fast
jeff: i'm glad to hear what
Dsinger_ said
... he said he agreed w/ chaals, but he agreed w/ me
<Dsinger_> I agreed with two people who disagree! Neat trick
jeff: to chaals, when we do the
edit task and remove 5 pages of text by removing redundancies,
then i'll probably be supportive of that
... but as Dsinger_ said, you need to talk about the AB, and
you need to talk about the Process
chaals: there's a reason i work
the way i do
... text change proposal, one-by-one
... saying "here's the redundancy [i think i see]"
... the frustration i have is that we've spent literally hours
each on a paragraph
... the ability to get through large chunks in a quarter is
hard
<jeff> [/me suspects that we will spend fewer than hours if we talk about worthwhile changes or consistent changes]
chaals: i'm happy to write off
this paragraph
... i'm happy to take a proposal whereby i line up pairs of
statements, people say yes, i axe one, later they come back and
read the document, and discover some redundancy should be put
back
... i'm looking for a modus-operandi where we do some
operandi
... only touching one line is entirely justified, but it's a
circular argument
SteveZ: i proposed a concrete
proposal: leave lead-architect line, drop all other pieces
since they're listed elsewhere, and we add a small bit to
liaison statement that seems useful
... from what i've heard so far, i think everyone is happy w/
that
... w/ an exception about having more text of director's
roles
... my concern is that either we put in pointers to all his
roles, or put in none
... putting in pointers to half is bad, since it leaves the
wrong impression (implying that it's all roles)
... i could put together a list of links, but even that's
dangerous
chaals: if you draft a set of links, i'd want to stop editing the document
Dsinger_: my suggestion is that
we look at a tool is that there's a tool that automatically
indexes
... a book is written w/ a tool that generates an index
... someone wants to look up director, they use the index
... why don't we put that on the back burner and see if we get
a solution to that
chaals: i don't have such a
tool
... i don't have a lot of motivation to look for/learn one
timeless: +1 to Dsinger_
... we can ask someone else to help us get such a tool
... and we can do it for a future year's iteration of the
document
Dsinger_: can we ask darobin about it?
SteveZ: i think Bikeshed might be
able to do it
... as timeless points out, this isn't an issue for this year's
version of the document
... jeff are you ok w/ a sentence "the additional duties of the
director are described throughout the document."?
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to repeat his previous suggestion
jeff: similar to SteveZ 's
suggestion "director has role as L-T-A, responsibilities are
described elsewhere in the document, some of the /key/
responsibilities include consensus, publishing TR, appointing
chairs, handling appeals of WG decisions"
... i think that gives a helpful flavor
... it doesn't have to be linked, it doesn't have to be
comprehensive
timeless: i can live with that
SteveZ: i can live with
that
... if it solves the problem and allows us to go with that
<inserted> Dsinger_: ok by me
chaals: i'm ok with "director is
L-T-A"
... i despise additional text, i think it's a terrible idea
SteveZ: 5 people is hardly
representative of the organization
... 4 people ... isn't bad
<Dsinger_> In cases like this I defer to the person willing to edit, however...
SteveZ: do i hear objections to jeff 's paragraph?
chaals: mine
SteveZ: acknowledging objection
chaals: resolution is to remove
Paragraph's 4+5
... add missing word
... and add director's duties are described throughout the
document, some key ones include
RESOLUTION: remove paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 2.2 and in paragraph 3 add "director's duties are described throughout the document, some key ones include"
<trackbot> Issue-129 -- Should the Process define Coordination Groups? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129
chaals: if we agree that the
resolution to issue-129 is that we remove Coordination Groups
and make no further changes
... we were leaning there
SteveZ: that's where i believe we
are
... i'd make one change to the resolution, that we move
mechanisms to a section of the guide for best practices on
coordination
jeff: i don't think we decided on last week's call to drop coordination groups
<Dsinger_> ...and wide review should normally include review by coordination groups?
jeff: SteveZ, would you be
willing to discuss the final resolution with judy?
... i thought last week's discussion was very good
SteveZ: i should have copied judy
on action-44
... which says that there's already sufficient text for
coordination
chaals: is there support?
[ yes ]
SteveZ: any objections?
[ none ]
RESOLUTION: Remove the material on Coordination Groups from the Process Document
<Dsinger_> No objection
<chaals> action-44 is outstanding but associated
<chaals> ACTION: Steve to communicate the resolution of issue-129 to Judy Brewer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/16-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Communicate the resolution of issue-129 to judy brewer [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-12-23].
<chaals> thanks folks
SteveZ: we're waiting on
PSIG
... i think there was some progress
... people realized that the problem they were worrying about
wasn't really a problem since they were only looking at half of
the section
... i only gave them text for the section that was changing
(insufficient context)
[ Adjourned ]
trackbot, end meeting
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/zakom, code?// Succeeded: s/XXX/AC/ FAILED: s/XXX/early May AC/ Succeeded: s|s/XXX/early May AC/|| Succeeded: s/AC/early May AC/ Succeeded: s/waffle around/go back and forth a bit/ Succeeded: s/.../SteveZ:/ Succeeded: s/is/are/ Succeeded: s/XXQ/change the liaison management from "team" to "team under leadership of the CEO"/ FAILED: s/XXQ/All liaisons MUST be coordinated by the Team under the leadership of the CEO / Succeeded: s|s/XXQ/All liaisons MUST be coordinated by the Team under the leadership of the CEO /|| Succeeded: s/it's repetitive/it repeats content already included/ Succeeded: s/elsewher/elsewhere/ Succeeded: s|q/|| Succeeded: s/have motivation/have a lot of motivation/ Succeeded: i/ok with/Dsinger_: ok by me FAILED: s/add responsiiblities include/add director's duties are described throughout the document, some key ones include/ Succeeded: s/Issue-129?/Topic: Issue-129/ Succeeded: s/[ Adjourned ]// Succeeded: s/Steve, can you point me at the big picture, plz?// Succeeded: s/...in email...// Succeeded: s|... i don't agree w/ ppp|| FAILED: s/\<chaals\> RESOLUTION:/\<timeless\> RESOLUTION:/ Succeeded: s|s/\<chaals\> RESOLUTION:/\<timeless\> RESOLUTION:/|| Succeeded: s/Last change: who declared consensus/Last change: who declares consensus/ Succeeded: s|S/declared/declares/|| Succeeded: s/add responsibilities include/add director's duties are described throughout the document, some key ones include/ Succeeded: s|s/add responsiiblities include/add director's duties are described throughout the document, some key ones include/|| Succeeded: s/bye, josh.// Succeeded: s/<chaals> RESOLUTION:/<timeless> RESOLUTION:/ Succeeded: s/<chaals> RESOLUTION:/<timeless> RESOLUTION:/ Succeeded: s/[IPcaller], // Succeeded: s/+1.416.440.aaaa, // Succeeded: s/+1.416.440.aaaa, // Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: SteveZ, timeless, Jeff, chaals, dsinger Present: SteveZ timeless Jeff chaals dsinger Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0069.html Found Date: 16 Dec 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/16-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: steve[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]