<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.

Addison Philipps comments on Horizontal Review

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: