See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2015
<scribe> scribenick: jeff
SZ: Looking for Chaals
<inserted> Open Actions
SZ: Action 38 was done
... Action 40 was done
... Action 43 is done.
... Action 44 is still open
... Action 45 is done.
Jeff: In closure of Action 40 there should be a comment that this will be done by best practice document.
SZ: Agreed.
SZ: Chaals asked for time at the
AB meeting to discuss how to proceed.
... Don't know his idea
... Current plan is to have a document for the AB to review in
Tokyo
... Believe we are close
... Going through previous minutes
... So we should get a draft out in early February
... AB review at F2F.
... Still open on PSIG request for text on errata because PSIG
got distracted on FAQ 37
... substantive change requires call for exclusions
... so we never got comments on Errata text
... Geoffrey has asked for updating of spec to say only certain
changes are included
... not substantive ones
... that's up to PSIG
... meanwhile we didn't get an answer to our question
... any issue we need to close?
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on FAQ 37
Jeff: I thought in the email thread we decided there was no issue on FAQ 37
SZ: No issue on the process, but
still it implies that we can do substantive changes
... Geoffrey is still concerned with FAQ 37 text
Jeff: They should bring it back to the discussion thread.
Mike: Let's not let mild concerns get in the way of progress
SZ: True, but it re-popped-up on PSIG thread
Dave: PSIG must express concerns, but it should not stop us
SZ: There are no problems but we need to still find out.
Jeff: So we will proceeed as if there are no issues, but we need an answer on Errata text.
SZ: I will respond to Scott with that.
Jeff: When we bring Process2015
to the AB, we should collect the major issues we plan to
address in Process2016
... CGs may be an example.
Steve: I've been focused on
Process 2015, but yes, I should have the additional points when
we go to the AB
... Anything else?
timeless: I need to review my
notes
... Daniel's notes on recharting being problematic for some
kinds of groups
... Recent progress between Daniel and Art.
Steve: Good examples
... Elika raised issues with difficulties of Errata process, as
well.
timeless: Around TPAC time
SZ: Just past
timeless: Corollary of Issue-93
is that we have short-lived and long-lived WGs (with many
documents)
... these don't work well together: process, patent
policy
... we should improve that.
Steve: That's Supergroups
timeless: Some is errata to patent policy
SZ: Supergroups is not an AB project this year - right Jeff
Jeff: Right.
Dave: [muffled@@] I want to review errata text
SZ: I tried to make it vague
enough so you can put it inline in document.
... removed text that it points to a separate errata
document
... but I agree with your comment
... Summary. We are very close to having a doc for Process
2015, with the exception of splitting the document into 2
pieces
... In preparing for the AB we will include a list of topics
for Process 2016.
... We will make sure that text for errata allows automatic
generation of errata document
... as well as inline.
SZ: Chaals sent out a doc
... Don't know if anyone read it.
... Still has COO line (in Section 2.2)
... process document getting smaller
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/3c4bc56ce16b/cover.html#Organization
<SteveZ> Chaals drafts is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/3c4bc56ce16b/cover.html
timeless: Current doc is 40 pages. Editor's draft is 36 pages.
<SteveZ> Team section; https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/3c4bc56ce16b/cover.html#Team
SZ: I guess Activities did not reduce too much
timeless: In ack section, both B's in BlackBerry must be capitaliZed
SZ: Send Chaals a note
... Director as lead technical architect, etc., is in
there
... COO line got left in because it was not clear where those
tasks go.
... Jeff, are you happy with the current text: COO, etc?
Jeff: I thought we were going to substantially simplify the text and remove the reference to the COO.
SZ: Why don't you suggest what
should disappear.
... I was not sure what you wanted.
Jeff: I thought we discussed that and made decisions
SZ: We need a concrete proposal
Jeff: I am happy to do it if the Editor feels that previous discussions are not clear enough.
SZ: We'll take it offline.
Jeff: Perfect.
SZ: Anyone have any issues with the draft?
[Silence]
SZ: Issue-93
... This is closer to a PSIG issue
... Chaals raised it; not sure what he had in mind.
... patent policy piece; decision making piece
... may be for Process2016. Not a simple solution.
Jeff: Process2016 - or drop due to unnecessary complexity for corner case?
SZ: Resolution: Postpone for Process2016
RESOLUTION: Issue-93 is postponed to Process2016
Mike: I raised issue 150 about IE agreement because discussion on mailing list is going in circles
<Dsinger_> Issue-150?
<trackbot> Issue-150 -- Remove restriction on "branching" from invited experts agreement -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/150
Mike: Is that in scope for the CG since not part of process document?
SZ: Two answers.
... by tradition, any topic loosely connected to process shows
up here
... whether in scope or not
... team owns IE agreement
... intent to do something consistent with PP
... out of scope for process task force
... Jeff?
Jeff: Could be a Team issue or AB issue.
SZ: AB input would be
useful
... but Team owns agreement
... it is in a fuzzy space
... Team is in charge of implementing various policies
<Dsinger_> Does anyone on the process tf think that such a change would be in conflict with the process?
SZ: Process says IEs must sign the agreement
DS: Would this be in conflict with the process
timeless: Only IEs have this constraint
SZ: Process says that to
participate as IE, IE must agree to terms of agreement.
... so, Mike, there is nothing we need to do in process
... nor anything in the process that prevents the team from
changing the IE agreement
Mike: Makes sense.
timeless: How do we get process
or regular updates?
... AB and Team are a lot less open.
Dave: Steve should refer this to the AB.
SZ: Jeff would that be helpful?
Jeff: I have no problem with your writing such a memo
Mike: I just want to make sure we get some resolution.
Dave: It would be good if the process TF asks the AB to take it up.
SZ: We'll meet on the 13th
<Dsinger_> ...and also ask the ab to keep processtf informed
[adjourned]
<timeless> 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/ping, timeless// Succeeded: s/SZ;/SZ:/ Succeeded: i/Action 38 was done/topic: Review Open Action Items Succeeded: i|Action 38 was done|-> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open/ Open Issues Succeeded: s/Open Issues/Open Actions/ Succeeded: s/Topic: Review latest process document// Succeeded: i/Issue-/Topic: Issue-93: What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? Succeeded: s/TOPIC: Issue-93// Succeeded: s/SteveZ/jeff/ Succeeded: s/Timeless/timeless/g Succeeded: i/I raised/Topic: Issue-150 -- Remove restriction on "branching" from invited experts agreement -- raised Succeeded: i/We'll meet on the 13th/Topic: AoB Succeeded: s/Topic: AoB// Succeeded: s/+1.416.440.aaaa, // Found ScribeNick: jeff Inferring Scribes: jeff Default Present: SteveZ, Jeff, dsinger, Mike_Champion, timeless Present: SteveZ Jeff dsinger Mike_Champion timeless Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0000.html Found Date: 06 Jan 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/01/06-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]