W3C

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

10 Mar 2015

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Mike_Champion, Jeff, timeless, SteveZ
Regrets
Chair
SteveZ
Scribe
timeless

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 10 March 2015

<scribe> scribe: timeless

Discuss proposed AC Agenda

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.

List of potential Issues for Process 2016

<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

Wayne Carr's comments on the proposed draft of Process2015

SteveZ: i haven't had a chance to completely review his feedback
... some are simple, capitalization mistakes
... others are substantive

Any Other Business

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

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/03/10 14:38:31 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]