See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 April 2015
Steve: Noone likes your proposal on the TAG. Anything we can do to compromise?
Chaals: No.
Jeff: Steve, since we don't have a quorum and hence no way to declare consensus; what's your plan - take it to the AB? Will we be able to get a revision in time for the AC?
Chaals: @@ since scribe was typing; but something of the form - you can proceed with the document without the text I object to.
Steve: Could have the AB
determine whether there is consensus.
... I could give several options how to proceed
Chaals: Indeed, lots of
options
... A, B, A and B, A or B, etc.
Steve: And even better than that.
Jeff: Different options are OK with me; but going to the AB is OK.
Chaals: Why should the AB decide an issue which is for the AC?
Steve: The AB is merely deciding
what draft should go out for formal AC review.
... We can also ballot this particular change separately.
Chaals: You could also ballot each substantive change one-by-one.
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to -1 to "line item vetos"
Jeff: Might be OK for TAG election to have separate ballot; in general you will end up with a mess because issues are interrelated.
Steve: +1 to Jeff
Chaals: If the committee produces something for vote that it knows will not achieve consensus then it needs to work out what to do about that.
Steve: Agreed.
Issue-152?
<trackbot> Issue-152 -- Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152
Steve: (1) Consensus to revert
the change
... (2) Clarify what editorial means
... Everyone (except maybe Chaals) seems to agree that if it is
truly editorial we don't need the extra review
... Need final edit plan by next week
Jeff: We need the plan this week and the document next week
Steve: Not sure we are there
yet.
... I provided suggested text
Chaals: I suggest a CfC from
mailing list
... and I won't be at next meeting
Steve: Agreed.
Steve: I argued that we have
already addressed his issue via "Charter"
... AP was not impressed
<chaals> ack me]
Chaals: There are several places we can insert this in the document (e.g. in Chartering)
Steve: Yes.
Chaals: This is consistent with the thoughtfulness we expect in general from "wide review".
Steve: Yes.
... we also may put some language into "wide review".
Chaals: And in other places
Steve: OK.
... Some editorial non-controversial stuff
... I will also create a "disposition of comments" document
Chaals: Why don't more people come to the calls?
Steve: The calls are still valuable.
Jeff: We need Process changes to involve more "real" change; not corner cases
[adjourned]
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/C/ (1) C/ Succeeded: s/We should do it for controversial items/If the committee produces something for vote that it knows will not achieve consensus then it needs to work out what to do about that/ Succeeded: s/(/...(/ Succeeded: s/plaes/places/ Succeeded: s/calls./calls?/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jeff Inferring Scribes: jeff Default Present: Jeff, SteveZ, Chaals Present: Jeff SteveZ Chaals WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 07 Apr 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]