Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 19 May 2015

<trackbot> Date: 19 May 2015

<dsinger> revert for that section?

<scribe> scribe: jeff

Mike: Options
... #1 Director can overrule the formal objections.

<dsinger> suggest that we remove that section, hope the case doesn’t arise this year, and deal with it in the general review of the TAG in process2016

Mike: #2 delete the TAG piece altogether

<SteveZ_> Jeff: Rest of you are suggesting that we take approach 2, just regress the TAG change

<SteveZ_> ... I think that approach 1, overruling the FO, would be best

<SteveZ_> ... so far only 8 people have supportted the change to the Process

Jeff: For any TAG approach there are dissenters.

<SteveZ_> Jeff: I am concerned that deleting just the TAG piece would allow filibusturing and we would make no progress

Jeff: if you allow the objection to prevent change, then there could be a "livelock" situation where there are always some objectors to change freezing the existing situation.
... I would actually prefer option #3 - back out the entire set of changes, compared to just backing out the TAG piece.

Steve: Process 2016
... Topics: TAG structure, CG transition, Membership organizations
... updating the guide
... meeting requirements, evolution of process, definition of "WG decision"
... appeals
... Jeff, sound good?

Jeff: Yes.

Steve: I asked Ian who should maintain CG process
... Ian said "not me"
... Also there is a list of works to do.
... Ian is OK with task force taking on work of editing CG process.
... Chaals doesn't want to do it
... CG doc should be separate from WG doc (separate change cycles)
... this task force should take on maintenance organization.
... Jeff, what do you think?

Jeff: If the AB wants to formalize the CG process, then the AB would need to own it.
... but maintenance could happen in the CG; just as we do for the formal process.

Steve: I agree.

David: Have we defined the CG process "problem"?

Mike: I learned at the AC meeting that I was wrong about making references to the CG in the process document.

<SteveZ_> Jeff: Team has current responsibility for CG Process. If it moves, the AB is the natural place to move it too since they have the Process responsibility. The AB might then use the Process TF to do brainstorming

<dsinger> the process TF doesn’t ‘own’ anything. it merely works and suggests/recommends

Mike: CG can own the CG process evolution.

<dsinger> and the AB merely ‘advises’ as well

Steve: Better to say that the CG drives it.

David: Or the Membership could if they wanted to.

<SteveZ_> Jeff: the Ownership of the CG Process belongs to the Director. I would object to giving ownership of a critical process to a CG.

David: we are talking about documentation of transition from CGs to WG.

<SteveZ_> The Wiki that Ian Jacobs refered to, having the topics that need updates to the CG Process is http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Cg_2013

Jeff: Should this be something that we document - or that individual CGs or WGs document.

David: It would be best to have a best practices document.

Steve: Issue around fairness in CGs.
... anti-trust rules
... there are no procedures for CGs.

Jeff: I agree. Making clear that CGs are not providing formal standards. If they are more fair, it would make transition to standards easier.

David: We should characterize CGs as a generalized "several member submission".

<SteveZ_> Jeff: I think having a document that notes that CG do not have rules and therefore, their output is not a standard, but should be suitable for input into a standard. That is helped by the CG adopting rules for fairness and that would ease the transition to a Standards process

<SteveZ_> Jeff: I think most of the things on Ian's list are mostly administrative and not really useful to discuss in the Process TF. These are things the Team should be doing.

<SteveZ_> dsinger: We should cherrypick the topics that need discussion; e.g. the CLA question

<SteveZ_> Jeff: does the CLA belong here or in the PSIG

<SteveZ_> Jeff: we did develop the W3C Doc license and PSIG suggested applying it to orphan documents

Steve: For drafting text, though, we should ask PSIG

<SteveZ_> ... on the question of using it for Specs (for which we want a permissive license) the AB decided we did not need to ask the PSIG if we wanted to do this. The AB just recommended adoption.

Steve: For next week I will assemble the actions and issues we should look at.

David: Who has the list of CG, WG, transition issues.

Steve: Two that I know of
... different protocol for IP which may or may not be a problem
... encourage use of CGs to get things started

Dave: Fairness of process

Steve: IP has much to do with tracking contributions: github, etc.

https://www.w3.org/Member/Board/track/actions/open

Jeff: Please clean up whether these are issues, and whether tracked by AB

<SteveZ_> Jeff: AB is stuck with two old features: actions 38 and 39 on AB list. Steve Z to check if these features moved to Process TF

<dsinger> issues?

Steve: These seem like guide items.

<dsinger> issue-1?

<trackbot> issue-1 -- Member only mailing lists and meetings for technical discussion -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/1

<SteveZ_> Jeff: on June 2 would like to have a discussion on what the CG recommends on Process 2015 results

Jeff: Steve, If AB actions 38 and 39 are done, please inform the AB.

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about process2016

Dave: Next steps on Process2016?

Steve: I will get stuff into issue tracker and we go from there.

[adjourned]

<SteveZ_> Adjourned

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

19 May 2015

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output