Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 28 Apr 2015

<trackbot> Date: 28 April 2015

<scribe> scribe: timeless

Review letter announcing AC review of Process 2015

jeff: in the draft ac memo that SteveZ sent
... to a non public list
... no mention was made of a formal objection

SteveZ: i was unclear whether a formal objection was formally delivered,

chaals: in all likelihood, there will be a formal objection when there is a formal review

jeff: the question is whether there should be a reference to it in the letter starting the final review

chaals: that seems like the logical thing to do

mike: i think it's useful information to the voters

SteveZ: i can point to the message that chaals sent indicating the objection

jeff: we need to have the url to the document in the memo to the AC
... is the final one we're sending to the AC, the one we sent to the AB on the 24th of April?

SteveZ: last time we created a Proposed Process Document (possibly Ralph did it?)
... it was located somewhere else

jeff: last time we said the editor was chaals and the previous editor was IanJ
... do we leave it that way?

chaals: i think we leave it that way
... the general convention is to give credit to people who in the past have been editing

SteveZ: the document that went out for review was in /TR/ space

chaals: if you want it in dated space, then you need a Staff member to do that

SteveZ: someone also has to create the WBS (survey)

<glazou> sorry for being late

SteveZ: last time the document had gone out for LC review, i didn't include that either, i can include it

jeff: i need to know what i'm doing, and what you're doing
... i'm getting on a plane tomorrow morning

SteveZ: it seems like koalie sends it out

jeff: do we need to include the DoC pointer here?

SteveZ: i don't know
... there wasn't one in the one that went out for 2014

jeff: fair enough

SteveZ: i'll update it w/ the two changes (ref to formal objection, + ref to LC review)
... i'll send it to the TF first, so someone w/ a comment can send it quickly
... creating a document in dated space, and sending an announcement are the things to do

jeff: i can take care of the Team things
... you can tell me what you want to put in the actual memo

SteveZ: the 2014 announcement had a pointer to the document, a statement about changes, a WBS, and a deadline
... we should decide on the deadline...
... 4 weeks, right?

chaals: this is a formal AC review, it gets 4 weeks

jeff: it would be worthwhile to state there will be an opportunity for questions/discussion at the AC meeting

SteveZ: i can do those things, and send it to you (+TF)
... the only difference w/ what i sent to jeff,
... i included a summary of the changes -- from chaals 's document
... structural changes, major changes

jeff: did we fix the Errata thing?

SteveZ: yep

jeff: which change is that?

SteveZ: it's in chaals 's list
... under editorial changes, clarify language of 7.7.1 to encourage groups to be responsive

jeff: didn't we also provide some mechanism so Errata didn't have to be on a separate page?

SteveZ: chaals listed it in his changes as an editorial change

jeff: i thought it was important

timeless: +1

jeff: it doesn't just clarify the language, it allows for a different approach

SteveZ: i'll fix that too
... those are the major changes, i think that's all that we need to discuss on the document

Review Open Action Items

SteveZ: i don't think there are any actions to review

Express thanks to all those that contributed to shaping Process 2015

<inserted> Thanks to Process TF for work on Process 2015

SteveZ: so

<jeff> SteveZ+++

<jeff> Chaals+++

<jeff> Timeless+++

SteveZ: i wanted to formally express my thanks for all of you who helped put the document together

<jeff> Mike+++

SteveZ: and i know that Josh wasn't at the AB meeting

<jeff> Everyone else+++

SteveZ: so i wanted to thank you as well
... for helping make this possible

CGs

SteveZ: having CGs have a better documented role in creating Docs/Charters
... what kinds of guarantees/rights do CG members have?
... i think Mike said don't add any
... we don't necessarily need to fix that now, but i think we should raise that to the AC audience
... there was a separate discussion on the Process vs. the Guide
... to me, the Process is as short as possible for Rules/Rights -- who participates, how, how work gets done, what's guaranteed to them
... everything else can go in the Guide
... i think there was agreement on the ML that
... something like the Guide would be useful
... ArtB suggested transferring the Guide to github

<jeff> W3C's community's reaction to the discussion of the Guide --> http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/image/117552201652

SteveZ: i proposed a Wiki because i like the way Wikipedia works

<glazou> ,:-)

SteveZ: I guess github works similarly, that you can get notification on changes to a section
... i'd be interested in whether people think it's practical/good

mike: it's kind of a necessity that whatever this is called, that it isn't maintained by the Team
... it's a community effort
... how this is developed should be a template for how things develop at W3C
... it seems Github is the more powerful/futureproof way than Wiki
... as for where it's administered from
... if we're talking about a Template for the Future
... covering CGs and getting Reviews before it goes off for Approval
... more and more work is being done in Github
... people contribute Pull Requests (PRs) with their suggestions
... my hypothesis is that it will be more productive than doing things on MLs
... and appointing an Editor to come up w/ words
... i'd vote for... i don't care what CG is nominally administering it
... as long as it's crowd-sourced and the best ideas get traction

SteveZ: there are some complications
... implementing some of these things requires the Systems Team and Communications provide some support
... there's a need for process for some resources to be provided

mike: that's why i like the idea of non normative stuff being in the Process document
... i respect your opinion that the process document being minimal
... w/o some process for the Best Practices, it just becomes a collection of random thoughts
... it seems to me that keeping this in the Process makes sense, but i could be convinced otherwise

jeff: i don't care where it lives, it makes sense to me that it be crowd-sourced
... we should think about who the leader should be for this effort
... i'd be happy if koalie could do it, i haven't asked her, but she could be busy

SteveZ: it's partly a W3M question about how they'd manage it

jeff: from Team, it'd go to the head of Comm, which is why I mentioned koalie
... if we don't have the bandwidth, then we should step aside and let someone else take it over

Panel discussion at AC

SteveZ: i'm not proposing an idea, but perhaps things to talk about at the AC
... we have a panel session
... this is one of the pieces that came out of the recent after discussion
... another was fixing the appeals process (probably less controversial)
... then, the question about Member-Group participants
... -- a separate for ones that are Org vs. Individual
... allowing 4 individuals to participate freely is different than allowing for Orgs to participate freely
... then, voting...
... i was counting on Mike and Ramen to talk about CGs and Getting Started
... for chaals to talk about Voting

jeff: Ramen has asked that he be replaced on the panel by cwilson

SteveZ: mike, you're on top of the CG thing

mike: to the extent that the Process document is a guide
... i'd like it to talk about CGs about how they can contribute their work for standardization
... along the lines of the Member contribution process
... i'll provide some proposals for that
... there's nothing that forbids CGs from sending a message to a WG to propose something for standardization by it
... putting a defined contribution mechanism would allow us to not reinvent it each time some CG wants to do it
... the Process document acknowledging the differences between CGs/WGs

SteveZ: Wayne had one on the relationships between CGs and WGs
... i can represent it, and i know glazou had comments on it

mike: is wayne on the panel?

jeff: wayne did not want to be on the panel

mike: i largely agree w/ wayne, so i can represent his view

jeff: if there's anything w/ no strong advocate, we don't have to discuss it
... it's a panel discussion, it's supposed to encourage discussion w/ the audience
... we've seeded the discussion, Guide, Members, CGs
... i don't want to over-manage it
... it's supposed to be natural, if the AC wants to talk about something else, we'll do that
... these are potentially filler points

SteveZ: sure, but at leas the ones on CGs would be useful to get out
... 1. to remind Members that they exist and to make them more useful
... so, we should put the CG items earlier

jeff: the passion on the panel will drive things
... if no one on a panel is a spokesperson, you shouldn't be forced to speak for...

SteveZ: some i believe in, i'm not trying to be devil's advocate for the sake of being devil's advocate

jeff: ok

SteveZ: we don't have cwilson, but the rest of us, is there anything else we need to discuss about the panel?

<glazou> ok

<glazou> I want to say that I still think CGs will eventually be a threat to WGs because of their simplicity of launch, simplicity of operations and more (including github) ; it will become increasingly difficult to prevent them from doing spec work. Not a problem from my POV, but this has to be known/ack’d before making any choice here.

<glazou> my choice is agility

<glazou> whatever is agile

SteveZ: glazou, i'll make the same comments in the discussion since i'm on the panel
... one note is the need to keep tracking multiple MLs
... and that isn't very productive
... maybe we just have to track one particular Github that has branches

timeless: branches on Github won't save you from drowning
... you'll end up getting lots of PRs for things you didn't care about
... you'll have to pray that people have conventions to save you

SteveZ: "tell me all i want to know, not what happens"

timeless: right

<jeff> Thanks, all.

SteveZ: and thanks once again timeless
... (see everyone else at the AC meeting)

timeless: y/w, and good luck all

<glazou> sorry I joined late, was fixing an urgent crasher in some code to be released soon by a customer

SteveZ: no meeting next week

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

28 Apr 2015

Attendees

Contents

Review letter announcing AC review of Process 2015

Review Open Action Items

Express thanks to all those that contributed to shaping Process 2015

CGs

Panel discussion at AC

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output