Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 13 Jan 2015

<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2015

<scribe> scribe: timeless

Review Open Action Items

<SteveZ> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open

[ There are 0 open actions. ]

interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization

Do we agree that CfC on not requiring an interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization reached a consensus and the text should be in Process2015?

SteveZ: during an AB call/online, chaals thought we had reached a consensus
... i believe we have reached a consensus, and chaals documented that in
... the public-w3process ML
... but i assume chaals would like a resolution to that effect

chaals: it would be helpful to have that
... i'd like the resolution to note the recorded objection

SteveZ: that's fair

dsinger: chaals remind me what your objection was

chaals: in the context of a broader set of changes, i think it makes sense
... but this alone, further enables the TAG to produce group-think

<dsinger> one is http://www.w3.org/mid/19561416928584@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru

<dsinger> and http://www.w3.org/mid/52681418358742@webcorp02h.yandex-team.ru

<SteveZ> RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation acheived Consensus with one objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part

RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation achieved Consensus with one objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0038/00-part http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/att-0173/00-part

ISSUE-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

issue-140?

<trackbot> issue-140 -- The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140

chaals: i dropped paragraphs 4 & 5

SteveZ: the remaining issue is the include-list
... jeff had made the point that it should list some key things that the director is responsible for
... chaals suggested using the existing list
... but it has some major/minor things

chaals: i also suggested that whatever is there is not that critical

<SteveZ> Changes in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Team make sense to me

SteveZ: given that draft, we can close issue-140

issue-140: Changes in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Team make sense to me

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-140 The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date.

<chaals> close issue-140

<trackbot> Closed issue-140.

jeff: in the note about the institutions
... JSC [joint sponsorship contracts]
... is now called "hosting agreements"

chaals: i'll make the change

dsinger: I am surprised that the Director’s role in Formal Objections is not one of the more prominent examples

chaals: yeah, i'll put it in
... it's there somewhere in tie-breaker, but i'll change the wording

ISSUE-145: Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc

issue-145?

For this and for Issue-140 check whether the resolutions have been implemented.

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

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

[ chaals will move issue-140 to pending-review ]

SteveZ: we'll leave this for now (following chaals 's model for issue-140)

ISSUE-141: Improve Errata management in W3C

ISSUE-141?

<trackbot> ISSUE-141 -- Improve Errata management in W3C -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141

SteveZ: there was a short discussion in yesterday's AB call
... jeff and myself thought we had reached a consensus
... and chaals proposed text that greatly simplified the text
... i feel troubled as chaals dropped quite a lot of things
... chaals noted that there's redundancy between 7.7.1 and 7.7.2
... i thought it was important for us to come to some resolution on this
... chaals's changes dropped the bits put in to add emphasis for WGs to be responsible for managing Errata in a public way
... and he dropped the definition of what Errata means in the process

jeff: Mr Chair, I have a Point of Order here
... i thought we had had extensive discussion on this
... fantasai spent time with us
... we sent it to PSIG
... it was pretty well developed
... i feel like it's done
... if we put something in and the AC wants to reject it, that's fine, that's the AC's prerogative
... fantasai showed up at the first meeting
... chaals showed up at the second
... fantasai didn't know about the second meeting

SteveZ: that's why i'm discussing that

<dsinger> I thought we were reviewing the current proposed text…

jeff: if there's a change that you and he can agree with, that's kind of ok
... but to throw away fantasai's proposal w/o her being her to defend it, is troubling

chaals: the reason i took an action item to make an laternative proposal was that i was unhappy with the proposal that was on the table
... this was my counter-proposal
... the process isn't as random as you're characterizing

SteveZ: i'm sympathetic to chaals 's PoV
... i'm not happy w/ your proposal for the reasons i gave
... you responded to those
... i can ping fantasai

<dsinger> can we have a link to the current proposal(s)?

SteveZ: i feel your proposal really leaves not as much grounding as the text that i proposed
... is the text that i proposed too complex?
... or is there something more that's going on?

chaals: there are several things that i'm unhappy about
... i'm concerned about the idea that recommendations include stuff that isn't part of the initial recommendation
... 1) it changes the long-standing social contract of w3's /TR/ publication
... 2) it places inappropriately restrictive and prescriptive constraints on WGs about how they do things

<dsinger> I agree that anything that is an as-yet unapproved revision of a Rec needs to be clearly labeled as not a Rec

chaals: there are a number of ways to do things, and this is just one of them
... i'm uncomfortable forcing a specific way

dsinger: can you give us a blow-by-blow critique of fantasai's proposal?

<inserted> Discussion

SteveZ: in creating Process2014, some of the text that was put in was put in to address a lack of clarity
... it didn't exist in 2005
... taking it out seems to be, as jeff says, going in circles

jeff: i don't see in chaals 's email where his objection is to the new process

chaals: it isn't in my email

jeff: chaals 's email says "here's the current process, here's my recommendation"
... for me, the process group came up w/ a proposed revision, that's what should be on the table
... if there are specific issues [with it], we should address/discuss them
... rather than starting from scratch

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask Chaals what particularly he does not like.

mchampion: i was going to agree w/ jeff
... when i read chaals 's proposal, i was struck that this doesn't seem to do what we set out to do here
... to motivate people to take errata, and address them more smoothly
... to address a political problem
... we're serious, you need to fix your bugs in place
... not doing so undermines the credibility of w3c recs

dsinger: what mchampion said, continues the confusion between Errata and Fixes to Errata
... even if a WG doesn't have a fix for an issue, i want the WG to be clear to the public that "we know there's a problem"
... "Errata is a list of enumerated errors, possibly accompanied by corrections"
... in a distinct page, inline, manually maintained, or automatic
... i think clarifying that it doesn't have to be manually managed is fine

SteveZ: chaals, i'm detecting people are in favor of the text that we had worked on
... as opposed to your proposal

<dsinger> can you post a link to the thing you’re wanting consensus on?

SteveZ: i'll propose a resolution to clarify that Errata lists can be autogenerated
... i don't see support in this discussion for your proposal

[ problem: there's a discussion, and a resolution "resolved as we discussed" -- which isn't as clear when read later as it once was ]

SteveZ: if it isn't clear to scribe what a resolution is saying, ask

chaals: "if i can't tell what the change to a document is saying from a resolution, then you should ask for clarification"

dsinger: i suspect we can address chaals and ArtB's concern in a different way

<SteveZ> The December Proposal is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0010.html

timeless: please ensure that ArtB and fantasai are invited to the discussion

dsinger: that's not the proposal we're looking for
... we're looking for the previous proposal

<SteveZ> Correctiion: the prior proposal was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html

SteveZ: proposed RESOLUTION: insert the proposed text from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html into the document

RESOLUTION: insert the "Replacement text" from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html into the document

dsinger: chaals, what's your objection to this proposal

chaals: I believe adding stuff in-situ to a document on TR is totally inappropriate

dsinger: it could be read as doing that

chaals: the only other mechanism it allows is forcing a separate Errata page
... one mechanism we don't like very much, and one mechanism that's actually terrible
... REC text should be the REC and just that
... doing it in two ways is problematic

<dsinger> I agree that the text proposed does not clearly indicate that any edited document must clearly identify itself as ‘not the Rec’

chaals: things about class 4 changes is also a problem
... given you have to track Errata classes 1-3 in this mechanism, and Errata class 4 is different

SteveZ: class 4 requires a WD

chaals: ED don't require anything
... Errata doesn't require anything
... an Issue tracker doesn't require anything
... WGs should be able to choose what's most appropriate for them/their audience
... the requirement to report changes to interested parties per Team seems impractical/unimplemented
... changes to a REC per 7.7.2 are already required to have Wide-Review
... so, informing interested parties is effectively a repeat of that statement

<dsinger> This phrase “A Working Group should keep their Recommendations up-to-date as errors are reported” implies that something that has been edited after achieving RTec status will still be labeled as “the rec”, which is at best misleading

chaals: in a form no less unclear + less trackable/verifiable

SteveZ: i'm sympathetic to the issues you raised
... by putting the text in and then working on the issues, i think we can move forward
... better way to move forward than throwing the baby out with the bathwater

chaals: if you record an objection w/ consensus, i'm ok

dsinger: i'm not ok
... i think the text can be misread in important negative ways

SteveZ: i think we make more progress by incorporating the text in the draft and working from there

dsinger: you're the chair, as long as we can make more changes

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to propose a compromise

jeff: chaals makes some good points which should motivate us to modify the text
... i think what's important
... the Quarterly review is important
... i don't think i heard an objection to that in chaals 's narrative
... preserving the heart of fantasai's means to include errata with the text of the REC is important as well

<chaals> [I forgot to mention "quarterly review should be ditched in place of the existing requirements to treat issues in a timely manner"]

jeff: to the extent that dsinger has concerns
... doing it in certain ways might be confusing
... doing it fantasai's way with "clearly marked" should be able to address that
... to the extent that chaals raised an issue that this is overly prescriptive, i wouldn't have a problem w/ the intent -- that it should be easy to find proposed corrections
... for people who'd like to find the current thinking
... and in the method fantasai proposed
... but adding that if the WG thinks they have a better way, that could be a WG decision

<jeff> [Chaals, thanks for forgetting to mention to ditch the quarterly reviews]

SteveZ: jeff, i think you would like us to...

jeff: i was suggesting that the editor be directed to adopt this text
... but with some specific emendations based on chaals + dsinger 's raised points
... but it might be too late in this meeting to work on that
... but i think we can do the debate+discussion next week/offline

chaals: what works best is doing nothing
... what doesn't work at all is doing unspecified changes

SteveZ: let's move forward with the 2 Nov 2014 text
... and work from that text
... chaals you won't have to put this into the draft, because we can work on this via email
... would those with problems w/ 2 Nov 2014 text suggest changes in email

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss schedule

jeff: without "throw away the whole proposal"

chaals: i can rewrite my email as 7 emails one per paragraph
... each "this is rubbish and should go" instead of a single email that addresses each point and makes a wholesale replacement proposal

<dsinger> “identify problems and the minimal changes needed to the Nov text to address them"

jeff: i don't see us making progress

SteveZ: i think jeff + dsinger can propose constructive changes
... i'm looking for proposals, keeping the general structure
... distinguishing categories or not, but that seems like broader

dsinger: SteveZ, you're saying take the 2 Nov 2014 text and identify MINIMAL changes and make proposals
... i think chaals and i can do that
... if we have multiple suggestions, we can probably merge them

chaals: SteveZ, do you want minimal, or optimal?

SteveZ: i think the statement is minimal, you may interpret minimal in any sense

jeff: we're looking for changes that preserve the spirit of fantasai's proposal
... as mike_champion said to solve a political problem

<chaals> [I think I will find it difficult to offer proposed changes that preserve something's spirit when I specifically oppose that spirit]

jeff: without changing what it means to be a W3C REC
... if you can preserve that spirit

chaals: i favor that, but i have issues with the spirit

jeff: there was a pretty big consensus in with November to go along this path
... we should give AC review a chance w/ this direction
... it's the general consensus of this TF for some time

SteveZ: i think the assignment is reasonably clear

<jeff> [Understand and respect Chaals' bracketed comment above.]

SteveZ: we'll meet again on the 20th

<dsinger> ACTION: dsinger to consider proposing minimal changes to the Nov errata revision to address concerns [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Consider proposing minimal changes to the nov errata revision to address concerns [on David Singer - due 2015-01-20].

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

13 Jan 2015

Attendees

Contents

Review Open Action Items

interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization

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

ISSUE-145: Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc

ISSUE-141: Improve Errata management in W3C

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output