Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 31 Mar 2015

<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2015

<scribe> scribe: timeless

Plan for next steps

jeff: i thought chaals was going to formally object to...

SteveZ: he was going to formally object to changing the rules for TAG
... he put out a proposal for the TAG that he would support
... but it was a way bigger change than what we were trying to do in this time
... his proposal was expanding the TAG w/ an extra three members, and some other things
... ArtB supported it

jeff: do we have a formal questionnaire that's open?

SteveZ: no, we just asked for email comments

jeff: so maybe his comments are a formal objection

mike: it might be useful to talk to the Director whomever this might be
... to get a sense of whether a Formal Objection would block this new process from becoming official

jeff: as a Content or Process Question?

mike: a Process question
... for how we'd handle what amounts to an attempt for a formal objection
... we could ask the Director if this FO would be upheld
... i'd hope the answer would be no

jeff: i'm pretty sure the answer would be that he wouldn't know until he looks
... usually if there's a FO, they ask people to try to work it out
... failing that, he'd rule on the FO

mike: ok, that makes sense
... so this is chaals putting an idea on the table

jeff: i guess it'd be useful if we could look at the thread

SteveZ: i believe the thread was on process

jeff: some review comments from Mark Nottingham
... his comments wouldn't block
... an AB/TAG -- chair resign request -- too much power
... some conflict between two mostly unused sections of voting
... and editorial

SteveZ: i think we could probably accept the second one

<jeff> Some Chaals comments --> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/att-0101/00-part

SteveZ: i think we need chaals to know if there's another proposal he'd accept

mike: no member has indicated support for his proposal

SteveZ: but per jeff's note, we should ask him if he'd accept other proposals

jeff: we should decide what we want to do
... unless he can come up w/ a suggested compromise, it sounds like we have a consensus to go forward w/ the current text

mike: I agree with that

SteveZ: i do too

jeff: on wayne's stuff, there was a lot of agreement to take on the Appeals issue in Process 2016
... but i feel like there was no consensus to take it on in 2015

SteveZ: there were a bunch of editorial things, which i think chaals has accepted
... we're talking about next steps, as the comment period is about to expire tomorrow

Dsinger: have we gotten comments

SteveZ: we've gotten comments from Wayne, Mark Nottingham, Chaals,

jeff: it'd be useful to put together a note for the AC of what comments we've gotten
... it'd be good for the chair to write a Disposition of Comments

mike: you can send it to the w3process list, and someone can send it to the AC list

SteveZ: the issue of whether the TAG should be changed in a broader sense is still open

mike: but it isn't a question for this year

jeff: the deadline is today, it's already tomorrow in Japan

mike: it's an informal deadline

Identifying out of date specifications

SteveZ: there was a discussion
... a proposal that we change the style sheets for out of date specifications
... to put up a notice to say that this specification is out of date
... (using CSS)
... indicating to check the current specification link to find the up to date copy ... it seems like this is now in the team's hands

jeff: is there a concrete proposal?

Dsinger: the proposal is that if the head of the document is different from the published document
... or if there's a major rev change

jeff: why is this a sys team thing instead of the WG?

mike: historical documents, someone has to do it, the WGs don't necessarily exist

jeff: we need a procedure going forward
... and we need a one time effort to catch up on history

mike: i agree

jeff: that makes sense to me
... do we want to put into the Process that WGs should do this?

mike: isn't it more of a Pub Rules things?

jeff: Team owns Pub Rules, but WGs own their interaction w/ Pub Rules
... i'd hope action is done where there's knowledge to do the work
... "following these new proposed Pub Rules", they'd send both their new document for Director Approval, and their doctoring of the old document

Dsinger: i thought the header of the document was autogenerated
... if we make the stylesheet change, i think the WGs will be quite keen to do whatever it takes to trigger it

SteveZ: only the Team can update historical document stylesheets
... right now, the WG can't do it per process

jeff: ok, then i need this new procedure to have the WG inform the team when it should happen
... i don't want to be in a position to have someone in Sys Team figure out that a WG obsoleted something
... the WG should inform Sys Team that we need to update the header on the now obsoleted document

<Dsinger> Someone works that out today. This is not process, can we take it offline?

SteveZ: when they publish a new version, it obsoletes an old version
... so pushing the publish button would be the notification

jeff: i don't know that's the only time

mike: this isn't a change to W3C Process
... it's a detail of W3 Team
... that's why i wanted someone from Team to weigh in on the easiest way for them to address this

jeff: i agree with you
... let's have someone write up the proposal
... so i can take it to the Sys Team

<Dsinger> Volunteers

jeff: my proposal is that included in the proposal shouldn't only be the new style sheet

<Dsinger> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html

jeff: but also the triggers that would cause the need for the style sheet

SteveZ: it seems useful to take the vague process to Sys Team and ask them "what information would you like from a WG to decide to be able to implement that"
... we can make suggestions of how it should be done, but they may have a better idea

Dsinger: if you have a look at the DNT document

> This version:

> Latest published version:

> Latest editor's draft:

> Editors:

Dsinger: i didn't write these lines
... it'd make sense for something to be able to automatically adjust lines like them
... i'll write this up

Summarize status of Wayne Carr's Comment 9

<Dsinger> Which was Wayne #9?

<inserted> Wayne's comment 9

SteveZ: i believe Wayne agreed that this wasn't a simple thing to fix

jeff: i thought it was a good job of identifying inconsistency
... i thought it would be interesting if we had a conversation of the problem we're trying to solve

<Dsinger> Yes, it is not a fire and there are alligators potentially lurking in the swamp

Continue review Wayne Carr's Comments on the Process 2015 draft out for Review

<inserted> Wayne's other comments

SteveZ: on Wayne's other comments
... on AC's something on something
... i think we decided in the minutes
... the Errata discussion hasn't produced any discussion
... we're still left in the air w/ the issue of whether
... we can do changes w/o requiring an AC review
... are there any things that are truly editorial
... Wayne listed some of those
... i'm not sure how to get useful discussion beyond the AC meeting itself

jeff: we agree that purely editorial discussions don't require AC review
... we just don't agree whether editorial changes is the empty set
... it seems the language we have is fine
... if it turns out that there is no such thing as an editorial change, then the clause will never be utilized

SteveZ: the document today says even editorial changes require AC review
... i'm willing to draft a proposed resolution

jeff: changing "MAY" to "may" could be editorial
... perhaps that's an existence proof

SteveZ: Wayne had some examples
... i believe the set is not empty

jeff: does anyone object to fantasai's proposal that purely editorial changes don't require AC review?

SteveZ: that would resolve the issue
... let me write that up and send it out as our proposed resolution

Dsinger: tricky, question is, what if a WG decides something is purely editorial, and AC disagrees?

jeff: i think that's a reasonable question
... i think it could go out to the AC w/ a 4 week window

Dsinger: but as chaals pointed out, you might as well put it up for AC review
... because it's the same amount of time

jeff: so, how does someone object given time?

Dsinger: i think we should leave it as a hanging question and move on

jeff: chaals's point
... well, a number of decisions, an Announcement of a Memorandum of Understanding w/ another Organization
... it goes out for a 4 week comment, which can be appealed, and if no one comments, then after 4 weeks, it's approved
... using that process, no one has to ballot the changes
... so i'm not sure i agree w/ chaals that it's the same thing

Dsinger: i think the WG members are the only people who could know they believe it's editorial

jeff: they could have already left W3C

Dsinger: so we could require no dissent instead of consensus

jeff: it may broaden their commitment instead of

Dsinger: then it will go to court, and they'll win

SteveZ: they're only on the hook for the last draft as a member

<jeff> +1 to Dave

[ Scribe note: not precisely, but close enough ]

Dsinger: i think the only AC Members who could object would be ACs who are members of the WGs

SteveZ: your point is that the decision to make an editorial change should be Without Opposition in the WG
... that makes sense to me

timeless: +1

<Dsinger> Ie better than consensus, no opposition

SteveZ: i need to develop a Disposition of Comments
... comment period officially closes today, but any comments received this week will be considered

timeless: Passover next week, I'll be on vacation

SteveZ: thanks everyone
... we'll talk next week

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

31 Mar 2015

Attendees

Contents

Plan for next steps

Identifying out of date specifications

Summarize status of Wayne Carr's Comment 9

Continue review Wayne Carr's Comments on the Process 2015 draft out for Review

Next

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output