See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 March 2015
No Action Items to review
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/100
SteveZ: Dave Singger proposed putting in a note in the Process Doc that indicates that there is a possibility of the Review period closing before the end of the Exclusion Period
Chaals: I pointed out that such a note already exists in the Proposed Rec Section of the Doc
SteveZ: Proposes clsoing the issue with a reference to the Note
Steve: Any Objections to Closign the issue
RESOLUTION: Issue-100 is closed with a reference to the note in the Proposed Recommendation Section
rssagent, make minutes
<chaals> close issue-100
<trackbot> Closed issue-100.
<chaals> issue-100 note that there is already a reference to the issue at entry to proposed Rec - the only realistic occasion where we could transition during an exclusion opportunity
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html
<jeff> Jeff: Wayne has made some excellent points
<jeff> ... however the AB effort to establish best practices for charter revisions is addressing this.
<jeff> ... I recommend you refer Wayne to the fact that the AB is on top of this issue
<jeff> ... and let's see whether the AB best practices work addresses the problem
SteveZ: The AB, at its February F2F Meeting made a number of proposals to help fix the Charter extension problem
<jeff> ... so we don't need heavyweight additions to the process
<jeff> acl je
SteveZ: Wayne has been made aware of the AB Discussion
<jeff> Wayne: wants s/general support/opinion of the proposal/
<jeff> +1
Wayne's number 5
<jeff> Chaals: Probably say "provide feedback"
Chaals agrees to make a change, likely to say, "provide feedback"
Wayne's comment 9
The issue of Apppeal of a Directors descion on an AC Review only if appealer made a dissent, i.e. a formal objection
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on that
SteveZ: there are two aspects to the issue: (1) not being able to appeal if you voted yes and the Dirctor's decision said no and 2) is a formal objection really necessary to be able to appeal if you vote no
<chaals> issue-7
<trackbot> issue-7 -- Make appealing decisions more believably possible and available -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/7
Jeff: Having a formal objection means that the Team has a topic and person to contact to see if there is a middle ground that would remove the formal objection
Chaals: several points are being
missed
... as it stands now as long as there was dissent anyone can
appeal
... it might make sense to rewrite it to say if the director
decides in opposition to what was proposed in the Review, then
that decision can be appealed
... this would be in addition to the dissent case
... Wayne raises another issue which is that a director's
decision to re-license a document under a different license
should be appealable
DSinger: The goal of this
process, the Reivew process, is to assess consensus and if the
Team and Director are in opposition to the proposed result then
there is not concensus
... if you say something should happen and the director says no
that is different than the director say yes when you have said
no
... you are always at liberty to say that a bad decision was
made
Chaals: I would recommend a
rewrite of the section to say if the director makes a decision
that is opposed to that proposed or there is dissent then the
decision can be appeal.
... this changes the second sentence of 8.2.
Jeff: not sure why we are doing
this for Proces 2015
... this proposed change has not happened
Chaals: the Director's decision on the HTML Charter seems like a similar case
Jeff: not in that case there was dissent so the decision was appealable by the current process
Chaals: these are comments on Process 2015, we can move our responses to Process 2016, but that seems unfriendly
Jeff: We have two level of reviews to insure that people get adequate time to insure the changes we are discussion are reviewed, adding new issues after the first review defeats that
<jeff> Jeff: Comments on "changes" we made for Process2015 should be addressed; Comments which add "new issues" for the process should be moved to Process2016.
SteveZ: I understand athe
principle of what Jeff is saying, but it seems that one might
be able to assess the level of controvery that would arise if a
given proposal were accepted
... I think that this particular proposal is
uncontroversial
Jeff: I do not know whether anyone on the Team might feel this is controversial
<jeff> Jeff: Seems that way. But I don't know what Tim's reaction would be if we added (without his review) that his decisions to disapprove transition requests are now appealable.
<Dsinger_> I think I need a table showing for each kind of decision, its progression, all the way to appeal. I want to make sure we don't have appeal loops, for example
Chaals: In the spirit of agile Process development, it seems better to put the change in and see if it goes thru rather than wait to see if there is a controversy
<Dsinger_> Can we spend less time on the abstruse?
Mike: Seems like we are spending a lot of time on an edge case
<Dsinger_> I am cautious, like Jeff, of introducing unintentional bugs. If it works, leave it alone...
Mike: Chaals proposal seems to make sense and fixing the issue seems consonate with Process 2015
Jeff: This would require another round of W3M review, but I am not raising a formal objection to the change
Chaals: this is not a big issue, so it should not take a lot of W3M time to review
dsinger: do we really need to do the change? I would lean to postponing it till Process 2016 to make sure we do not introduce new problems
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to produce a proposal for addressing Wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Produce a proposal for addressing wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2015-03-24].
<chaals> issue-97?
<trackbot> issue-97 -- Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really accurate and representative? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97
<Dsinger_> Close it, willnotfix
SteveZ: Does anyone boject to
closing Issue-97?
... Hearing no ojections, it is closed.
RESOLUTION: issue-97 is closed, "will not fix"
<chaals> close issue-97
<trackbot> Closed issue-97.
<Dsinger_> Advisory Body?
s/No action/Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0061.html \nNo action
s/TOPIC iss/TOPIC: Iss/
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/The decision/Wayne raises another issue which is that a director's decision/ Succeeded: s/totally opposed/raising a formal objection/ Succeeded: s/Carrs/Carr's/ Succeeded: s/sese/see/ Succeeded: s/woud/would/ Succeeded: s/cloased/closed/ Succeeded: s/Resolution/RESOLUTION/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/No action/Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0061.html \nNo action Succeeded: s/Topic Iss/TOPIC: Iss/ FAILED: s/TOPIC iss/TOPIC: Iss/ Succeeded: s/TOPIC Iss/TOPIC: Iss/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: SteveZ_ Inferring Scribes: SteveZ_ Default Present: Jeff, SteveZ, [IPcaller], chaals, dsinger, Mike_Champion Present: Jeff SteveZ [IPcaller] chaals dsinger Mike_Champion WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 17 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: chaals[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]