See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2015
<scribe> scribe: timeless
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
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
<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
<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
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/jeff:/SteveZ:/ Succeeded: s/dsinger/jeff/ FAILED: s/ ... it seems like this is now in ... hands// FAILED: s/ ... it seems like this is now in the TEAM's hands// Succeeded: s/... it seems like this is now in ... hands// Succeeded: s/... it seems like this is now in the TEAM's hands// Succeeded: s/... it seems like this is now in the team's hands// Succeeded: s/tihs/this/ Succeeded: s/.../jeff:/ Succeeded: s|s/ //|| Succeeded: s|s/ //|| Succeeded: i|was|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0106.html Wayne's comment 9 Succeeded: i|on|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html Wayne's other comments FAILED: s/... it seems like this is now in ... hands// Succeeded: s|s/... it seems like this is now in ... hands//|| Succeeded: s/SteveZ: it seems like this is now in ... hands// Succeeded: s/SteveZ: it seems like this is now in the TEAM's hands// Succeeded: s/SteveZ: it seems like this is now in the team's hands// Succeeded: s/link to find the up to date copy/link to find the up to date copy ... it seems like this is now in the team's hands/ Succeeded: s/Editors:/ Editors:/ Succeeded: s/ Editors:/> Editors:/ Succeeded: s/Latest editor's draft:/> Latest editor's draft:/ Succeeded: s/Latest published version:/> Latest published version:/ Succeeded: s/This version:/> This version:/ Succeeded: s/Dsinger_/Dsinger/g Succeeded: s/dsinger/Dsinger/g Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Default Present: SteveZ, Mike_Champion, Jeff, timeless, dsinger Present: SteveZ Mike_Champion Jeff timeless dsinger Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0138.html Found Date: 31 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]