See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 10 March 2015
<scribe> scribe: timeless
SteveZ: jeff, it looks like you
got responses from just about everyone for your proposed agenda
for the AC meeting
... my concern is whether there's enough to fill half an hour
w/ questions
jeff: we don't have to stand
there waiting for questions that don't exist
... we can move immediately to the panel if there's reason to
do that
... when we did process2014, we didn't know there was interest
either
... three hours wasn't enough
... there's a proposal that SteveZ would spend 15 mins
summarizing (@AC meeting)
... chaals and Steve would field Q&A (30 mins)
... and then 45 mins for discussion
<jeff> insert: then they would be joined on a panel with Mike, Wayne, David, and Raman to discuss process2016; with a focus on CGs.
<SteveZ> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Feb/0012.html
<SteveZ> List of Process Document Issue Not Currently Covered in the Process 2015 Draft being reviewed
SteveZ: the main reason for going
through this
... jeff raised the issue of, do we really need a process
2016?
... i think the CG issue has somewhat rescued that
... the main reason i put this on the agenda is
... the topic of process2016 is on the agenda for the AB
meeting next Monday
... i wanted to know if there was anything on this list that
people on this call thought we should highlight
issue-106?
<trackbot> issue-106 -- The graveyard of /TR -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/106
SteveZ: the graveyard is partly
sitting in the new process for issuing TRs
... but also in issue-152
... it was the ability to update PRs more frequently if you
wanted to
... not sure if there's more to do
... but it's worth highlighting
jeff: on my skepticism for
process2016
... i think most of the issues listed there are minutiae
... maybe process geeks care a lot
... some are longstanding issues w/ conflicting views
... i have some degree of skepticism
... every time we do a Rev on the Process document, there's a
cost to that
... i'm skeptical that it's worth doing
... i can see having a thoughtful inclusion of CGs into the
Process is a candidate to make Process 2016 worthwhlie
... but i think we need a proposal
... i spoke w/ Wayne
... and mike
... there's a notion that a WG could sponsor some CGs
... look after them, bring in the work after an appropriate
time
... a great idea, but not obvious that it requires a process
change
... there are other proposals that are more substantive
... "if a CG uses OpenStand then it could be streamlined into a
W3C Rec"
... that would be interesting, but we'd have to decide what it
means
... it'd be helpful if we brainstormed
... but more helpful if someone wrote up a proposal
SteveZ: if we did have a central theme, such as CGs, i assume you wouldn't object to fixing the small things that people care about along the way
jeff: right
<jeff> OpenStand
SteveZ: we may have fixed the /TR
problem, but it's early in the roll out, so too early to
tell
... the publish button may have helped
... i know of one case in CSS where it took 3 weeks to
publish
... Mike, do you have any things on your mind to fix?
Mike: no, not really
... the fundamental problem is getting people into groups to
reach consensus and have IP commitments
... CGs are possibly part of the solution
... but nothing else comes to mind to get to the heart of
that
SteveZ: the /TR graveyard is ...
Mike: I have mixed feelings, the
more automatic the process
... no distinction between ED and WD
... spec becomes property of Editor
SteveZ: i hear what you're
saying
... there's 2 ways in which the ED and the spec can work
... one is, chaals's approach, not putting anything in that the
WG hasn't discussed
... the other extreme is putting things in and then getting WG
comment
... i understand your concerns
<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if this covers graveyard docs beyond the active WGs
SteveZ: the second of the two processes definitely has concerns
Mike: for agility, you give the
Editor a badge and a Whip
... WhatWG way
... do it the traditional way, it doesn't move fast enough
SteveZ: jeff highlighted it, key thing is having proposals for discussion, that's what makes things happen
Mike: I agree
SteveZ: if you have a group where others make proposals
issue-128?
<trackbot> issue-128 -- Lack of test cases is a major contributor to schedule delay. -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/128
SteveZ: we closed 128, it's not a Process task, it's an education task
issue-136?
<trackbot> issue-136 -- Does process adequately cater for public input -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/136
SteveZ: the rules we have on
Invited Experts is a piece of this
... this needs a review by the group to see if there's a
problem to solve, or not
jeff: i can see a number of ways
to slice this, not sure what was intended by the raiser
... one is should we open more ways for public input
... the spec oriented proposal which AB reviewed in Feb meeting
is a good example of that
... we'll have a further example of that at the AC meeting in
Paris in May
... the other side, as we have more public participation, are
we doing enough to deal w/ provenance of spec text in the
document
... it's a fair issue, not sure if Process CG wants to jump
into it
SteveZ: the way i'd interpret it
is to do an assessment of what the process allows today
... is it adequate both for the Members, and the Public
... i don't propose to close anything today
... but note chaals's comments
SteveZ: i haven't had a chance to
completely review his feedback
... some are simple, capitalization mistakes
... others are substantive
SteveZ: i'm of the opinion that
i'm willing to give back the remaining half hour for people to
work
... i'm not sure we're ready to discuss anything else in
detail
... does anyone else have a topic they'd like to cover?
[ None ]
jeff: thanks SteveZ
SteveZ: thanks all
[ 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/XX/AC Agenda/ Succeeded: s/panel/panel (30 mins)/ Succeeded: s/XX/Steve/ Succeeded: s/discuss as a panel/field Q&A/ Succeeded: s|https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Feb/0012.html|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Feb/att-0012/Issues-RaisedAndOpen-CurrentlyNotInProcess2015.htm "List of Process Document Issue Not Currently Covered in the Process 2015 Draft being reviewed"| Succeeded: s/ais/a is/ Succeeded: s/jeff/SteveZ/ Succeeded: s|Timeless: OpenStand --> https://open-stand.org/|-> https://open-stand.org/ OpenStand| Succeeded: s/topic: AC Agenda// Succeeded: s/SteveZ: we've gotten responses from Wayne// Succeeded: i/opinion/topic: Any Other Business Succeeded: s/... jeff, it looks like/SteveZ: jeff, it looks like/ Succeeded: s/??P6, //G Succeeded: s/Meeting Adjuorned// Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: Mike_Champion, Jeff, timeless, SteveZ Present: Mike_Champion Jeff timeless SteveZ Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0025.html Found Date: 10 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/10-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]