08:32:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
08:32:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-irc
08:32:43 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record publci
08:32:46 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
08:33:15 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #w3process
08:33:19 <dsinger> trackbot, please follow this process
08:33:19 <trackbot> Sorry, dsinger, I don't understand 'trackbot, please follow this process'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
08:33:30 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #w3process
08:33:40 <astearns> astearns has joined #w3process
08:33:57 <dsinger> zakim, please call chaals
08:34:31 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/LC-TRprocess-20131024 Recommendation Track Process, "Last Call" draft proposal
08:36:08 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
08:36:52 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
08:36:52 <fantasai> chaals: Things I wanted to put on the agenda
08:37:05 <fantasai> chaals: Transition process -- assuming we adopt this proces,s how do we implement that?
08:37:09 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
08:37:42 <fantasai> chaals: Issue of getting review, in practice
08:37:47 <fantasai> chaals: Are there other issues?
08:37:56 <fantasai> chaals: various bikeshedding issues
08:38:11 <fantasai> fantasai:I would like to get clarifications on re-entry into LCCR
08:38:33 <sgalineau> sgalineau has joined #w3process
08:38:41 <chaals> agenda+ getting review
08:38:46 <chaals> agenda+ transition
08:38:59 <chaals> agenda+ process onions
08:39:04 <fantasai> dsinger: Thinking about onion rings of process
08:39:07 <chaals> agenda+ bikesheds
08:39:22 <chaals> agenda+ existing outstanding issues
08:40:06 <dsinger> I would like to explore the onion-ring of interests: how well it works for people (a) inside the WG (b) outside the WG but inside the W3C (c) in standards but outside the W3C and (d) rest of world.
08:40:27 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
08:40:32 <fantasai> agenda+ cycling within LCCR
08:40:53 <chaals> agenda+ implementation being a forcing function
08:40:59 <fantasai> paul: Old status section was, don't hold your implementation over our head
08:41:04 <fantasai> paul: But people are doing that right now
08:41:13 <fantasai> paul: Your changes are encouraging early implementation, early testing
08:41:28 <fantasai> paul: Having that text appear in the status section seems antithetical to that approach
08:41:42 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
08:41:53 <chaals> zakim, clear agenda
08:41:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
08:42:02 <chaals> zakim, agenda+ naming stages
08:42:02 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
08:42:03 <fantasai> szilles: Would like to do a quick straw poll on bikeshedding, to see wrt bikeshedding ...
08:42:03 <paulc> paulc has joined #w3process
08:42:19 <fantasai> mchampion: Why do they find w3c hard to work in? One was weird jargon
08:42:23 <fantasai> s/they/Chinese people/
08:42:24 <chaals> agenda+ gettting review
08:42:34 <chaals> agenda+ implementation as a forcing function.
08:42:41 <fantasai> szilles: current suggestion was to call LCCR "Candidate Recommendation"
08:42:58 <fantasai> szilles: separate issue wrt Recommendation -> Standard
08:43:21 <dsinger> bikeshed: Working Draft (internal, public), Draft Specification, Specification?
08:43:28 <fantasai> chaals: If we change Rec to Standard, then of course CR would not be great
08:43:42 <fantasai> chaals: Do people think we should change REC to something else
08:43:43 <dsinger> or WD, Draft Standard, Standard
08:44:33 <fantasai> sgalineau: I spend way too much time explaining to people that a Recommendation is a standard
08:44:44 <fantasai> paulc: We use the term "recommendation" everywhere
08:44:50 <fantasai> various people in favor, others are opposed
08:45:01 <chaals> agenda+ LCCR cycling
08:45:04 <fantasai> paulc: Anyone know why they're REC not Standard?
08:45:04 <chaals> agenda+ transition
08:45:09 <chaals> zakim, agenda
08:45:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', chaals
08:45:13 <fantasai> paulc: W3C wanted to recommend their standards, not to force anyone
08:45:14 <chaals> zakim, agenda?
08:45:14 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
08:45:15 <Zakim> 1. naming stages [from chaals]
08:45:15 <Zakim> 2. gettting review [from chaals]
08:45:15 <Zakim> 3. implementation as a forcing function. [from chaals]
08:45:15 <Zakim> 4. LCCR cycling [from chaals]
08:45:15 <Zakim> 5. transition [from chaals]
08:45:39 <fantasai> chaals: I suggest we note that there is opposition to changing the name
08:45:58 <fantasai> chaals: Are people of in favor of / opposed to / don't care using CR for LCCR
08:46:34 <fantasai> Ralph: I think it needs a better name than LCCR, but not sure CR is the best
08:46:55 <fantasai> fantasai: The idea was to collapse LC, CR, and PR
08:47:28 <fantasai> fantasai: In the CSSWG we pretty much view LC and PR as transitional phases, that aren't really phases that a specification doesn't actually sit in
08:47:47 <fantasai> fantasai: The phases for us as a WG are WD, which is a design phase
08:47:53 <fantasai> fantasai: CR, which is a testing phase
08:48:03 <fantasai> fantasai: and REC, which is a we're done but we're maintaining it phase
08:49:03 <fantasai> fantasai: So the name CR provides the least disruption from the current process names
08:49:04 <dsinger> q?
08:49:05 <mchampion> q+
08:49:20 <fantasai> fantasai: It basically makes this change to the process eliminate the transitional phases
08:49:23 <chaals> q+
08:49:33 <fantasai> mchampion: My only concern is the link to the patent policy
08:49:36 <chaals> ack mch
08:49:45 <fantasai> mchampion: I'm personally comfortable if we have a mapping to the patent policy
08:49:52 <chaals> ack cha
08:50:04 <fantasai> chaals: I took that issue to PSIG
08:50:18 <fantasai> chaals: asked if there's any problem with LCCR, and the initial opinion was "no problem"
08:50:28 <fantasai> chaals: I will be going back and asking them again and make sure they read/thought about it
08:50:34 <fantasai> chaals: But my belief is that this is not a problem
08:50:51 <fantasai> mchampion: First time PSIG was unanimous on anything, so skeptical :)
08:51:03 <fantasai> chaals: Large number of ppl in favor of the name, a few people couldn't care less, and no one was opposed
08:51:12 <fantasai> chaals: But ralph suggested another name might be better
08:51:31 <fantasai> chaals: So I suggest we close this item
08:51:39 <fantasai> chaals: Issue raised by several people which is worth considering
08:51:42 <fantasai> chaals: Issue of getting review
08:52:01 <fantasai> Topic: Getting wide review
08:52:15 <fantasai> paulc: Original process was WD / LC / PR / REC
08:52:19 <fantasai> paulc: then added CR
08:52:27 <fantasai> paulc: hearing that people want to collapse LC and CR together
08:52:33 <fantasai> paulc: I have a lot of experience with really big drafts
08:52:41 <Ralph> [/me thinks Chaals meant "[the straw poll showed a] large number of ppl in favor of the name "Candidate Rec", a few ..."]
08:52:42 <chaals> q+
08:52:48 <mchampion> q+ to say the AB got a lot of feedback saying LC is meaningless
08:52:57 <fantasai> paulc: My concern is that changes here are optimized for small agile drafts
08:53:08 <chaals> s/Large number of/straw poll showed a large number of/
08:53:17 <chaals> q- later
08:53:26 <fantasai> paulc: and that it's going to do damage to particularly large drafts
08:53:37 <fantasai> paulc: It's often hard to get review until you can say "it's in this stable state"
08:53:44 <fantasai> paulc: That's one of the characteristics of LC
08:53:46 <chaals> q+ to say that getting review of changed pieces when they are being changed is helpful.
08:53:51 <chaals> ack mc
08:53:51 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to say the AB got a lot of feedback saying LC is meaningless
08:53:51 <fantasai> q+
08:54:15 <SteveZ> q+
08:54:16 <fantasai> mchampion: When AB first started discussing this got feedback that LC was very confusing, because Last didn't mean Last
08:54:28 <fantasai> mchampion: It was just a way of telling people that this ia a draft they needed to take seriously
08:54:39 <fantasai> mchampion: Having some other mechanism for "this is a draft you need to take seriously"
08:54:44 <fantasai> mchampion: Let's make that clear
08:54:47 <sgalineau> q+
08:54:48 <chaals> ack ch
08:54:48 <dsinger> q+
08:54:49 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say that getting review of changed pieces when they are being changed is helpful.
08:54:57 <dsinger> q-
08:55:03 <fantasai> chaals: Yes, you have pre-LC drafts at the moment
08:55:06 <dsinger> q+ to offer names for WDs
08:55:17 <fantasai> chaals: dsinger asked "why not have a name for the thing before CR"
08:55:22 <fantasai> chaals: I have seen pre-pre-LC drafts
08:55:26 <fantasai> chaals: Extra names are confusing
08:55:34 <fantasai> chaals: Working Groups describe where they're at
08:55:41 <fantasai> chaals: It's possible that a standardized name for where you're at is useful
08:55:47 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #w3process
08:55:53 <fantasai> chaals: It's standard practice to just announce that you're almost done
08:56:02 <fantasai> chaals: at the same time, I think it is a goal for bits of specs to be reviewd
08:56:08 <fantasai> chaals: when they're being worked on and changed
08:56:12 <mchampion> q+ to say that another complaint about LC is that is is global to a spec, when a useful "this is stable
08:56:20 <fantasai> chaals: It's an explicit goal, should requirement, that when a spec has a piece of change that would benefit from review
08:56:25 <fantasai> chaals: there should be a WD published
08:56:34 <fantasai> chaals: Idea is to get review when the changes are being made
08:56:42 <dsinger> q?
08:56:43 <chaals> ack fant
08:57:00 <fantasai> fantasai: I don't really know how to translate this into humongous drafts like the HTML spec
08:57:05 <sgalineau> q-
08:57:14 <fantasai> fantasai: but in the course of my CSS work, I've identified several phases of WD development
08:57:41 <fantasai> fantasai: Because the CSS modules are small enough, our current-work page just groups modules under each of those statuses
08:57:56 <fantasai> fantasai: and I've wrote aobut this, whci hI'll link later
08:58:04 <fantasai> fantasai: We have 3 phases with thie WD phas
08:58:14 <fantasai> fantasai: First one iis "exploring"
08:58:24 <Ralph> fantasai: exploring is 'brainstorming'
08:58:27 <Ralph> ... nothing is stable
08:58:28 <fantasai> fantasai: lots of ideas trown around, nothing really stable at all
08:58:40 <Ralph> fantasai: the second phase is 'revising'
08:58:47 <Ralph> ... we have an idea of the functionality and the scope
08:58:55 <Ralph> ... but it's still quite malleable
08:59:00 <Ralph> ... the third stage is 'refining'
08:59:05 <Ralph> ... the features are all spec'd out
08:59:16 <Ralph> ... but various details of how they work aren't locked down
08:59:27 <dauwhe_> dauwhe_ has joined #w3process
08:59:34 <Ralph> ... the exploring phase is editor's draft, FPWD, and maybe several subsequent WDs
08:59:47 <Ralph> ... the 'revising' phase lasts for several more WDs
09:00:07 <Ralph> ... refining may take several more WDs but the changes are small
09:00:14 <Ralph> ... we describe these in our WG page
09:00:26 <Ralph> ... may be good to have SoTD lines to describe
09:00:31 <Ralph> ... but SoTD is full of junk
09:01:10 <Ralph> ... for Last Call, we believe all the issues are settled and this really is the last opportunity to ask us to change something
09:01:13 <chaals> ack ste
09:01:42 <fantasai> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/inside-csswg/process
09:01:45 <Ralph> SteveZ: I don't think we should resuse LC as it's always caused confusion
09:02:41 <Ralph> ... 'refining' is way to late to make significant changes
09:02:58 <fantasai> SteveZ: Would love to see us encourage a culture of review of what's changed when its matters
09:03:23 <fantasai> SteveZ: But getting a lot of feedback that there's a class of people that can't work that way
09:03:38 <fantasai> SteveZ: That it's useful to have a signal that "here's your last chance to look at it"
09:03:44 <chaals> q+
09:03:51 <fantasai> SteveZ: Would call that signal "functionally complete" -- can read whole document and probably hang together
09:04:00 <chaals> ack ralp
09:04:04 <fantasai> SteveZ: Flag to say we got somewhere, probably the "refining" stage in fantasai's terminology
09:04:13 <fantasai> Ralph: Appears to me the problem is the word itself: "last"
09:04:33 <fantasai> Ralph: The WG believes it's solved the issues to best of its ability and i fyou don't speak up now we're forging ahead
09:04:48 <fantasai> Ralph: But if someone finds major issue, WG will solve that and there will be another chance to comment
09:04:56 <dauwhe_> s/i fyou/if you/
09:04:58 <fantasai> Ralph: Trict interpretation of "last" is throwing some people off
09:05:13 <fantasai> Ralph: Maybe need a different signal for "we really think we're done"
09:05:14 <dauwhe_> s/Trict/Strict/
09:05:24 <fantasai> Ralph: But difference between providing that signal, and signals along the way
09:05:37 <fantasai> Ralph: But WGs are historically not really explaining what parts need review
09:05:44 <chaals> ack dsin
09:05:44 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to offer names for WDs
09:05:54 <fantasai> Ralph: I don't think we can live with that tension
09:06:03 <fantasai> dsinger: Listening to what you say, thinking , how do we solve this?
09:06:13 <SteveZ> +1 to Ralph's point that we should not do
09:06:20 <dsinger> public working draft: there are at least some sections of this, described in the SOTD, which can (should, even) be reviewed by non-WG members; a good practice is to ask for wider review and get that request in the W3C announcements, liaisons, etc., on a reasonable number of public WDs; particularly, the technical details of what is taken to LCCR should have had explicit public review requested (a 'functionally complete' public WD)
09:06:22 <SteveZ> Neither
09:06:23 <fantasai> dsinger: WGs have stage where it's kinda internal, they're not really ready for people to look at things
09:06:31 <Ralph> s/with that tension/with that tension of doing neither a "we're done" signal nor clearly saying in a Status what should be reviewed/
09:06:38 <fantasai> dsinger: But need a signal to say "this is pretty good to review, come take a look at it"
09:06:53 <fantasai> dsinger: ...
09:07:04 <fantasai> dsinger: When publish, can say "WG expects to take this to LCCR unless issues come up"
09:07:19 <chaals> ack mch
09:07:19 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to say that another complaint about LC is that is is global to a spec, when a useful "this is stable
09:07:27 <fantasai> fantasai: I think cleaning out the Status section would help with that a lot
09:07:49 <fantasai> mchampion: The LC was at the granularity of the document, but the actual stability is at at much finer granularity
09:07:56 <astearns> q+
09:08:08 <fantasai> mchampion: Putting that kind of status flags eithe rin the Status section, or in the text of the document, is how WHATWG does it
09:08:32 <chaals> ack cha
09:08:36 <fantasai> mchampion: Let's force people to make reasonable status section
09:08:40 <fantasai> q+
09:09:00 <dauwhe_> s/eithe rin/either in/
09:09:23 <fantasai> chaals: I suggest we do add a name for "the WG thinks it's done and is about to request LCCR", but that we reinforce the suggestion that public WDs are review drafts and should clarify which bits should be reviewed in each given draft
09:09:25 <chaals> ack cha
09:09:41 <fantasai> astearns: The Process proposal, as I recall, rquires that the WG demonstrate that they got wider review
09:10:22 <fantasai> astearns: Paul's point that larger drafts have possibly different requirements than more agie drafts makes me think the Process document should stay the way it is, and not say how you get review or call it a particular name
09:10:31 <dauwhe_> s/rquires/requires/
09:10:34 <fantasai> astearns: but have some bars to demonstrate, this is how you demonstrate
09:11:11 <fantasai> astearns: Could take the form of any of the things we've discussed: labelling the draft, having status section listing sections, a WG keeping track of the feeback they get from groups they're concerned about on a section by section basis
09:11:26 <fantasai> astearns: Just some example so fhow you demonstrate that, and leave it up to each WG to have process of their own for collecting that feedback
09:11:30 <chaals> q+ to respond to alan's suggestion
09:11:33 <SteveZ> q+ to say developing the review community is also necessary
09:11:33 <astearns> ack a
09:11:34 <chaals> ack ast
09:11:37 <chaals> ack ral
09:11:37 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask what's really polluting SoTD
09:11:38 <fantasai> Ralph: I'm having a little trouble understanding what goes on
09:11:42 <chaals> zakim, close the queue
09:11:42 <Zakim> ok, chaals, the speaker queue is closed
09:11:52 <fantasai> Ralph: You're not saying WG publishes one section and asks for review?
09:11:57 <fantasai> Ralph: Need context of document
09:12:01 <dsinger> q?
09:12:09 <fantasai> Ralph: Good to point at changed section to ask for review
09:12:17 <dsinger> q+ to talk about sections and maturity
09:12:20 <fantasai> Ralph: I thin that's good practice
09:12:28 <dsinger> s/thin/think/
09:12:50 <fantasai> Ralph: Curious to know, maybe what's polluting the status of the document so much that prevents people from explaining things in it?
09:13:15 <fantasai> Ralph: But going back to Chaals suggestion of new name for something that's LC but not quite, then lots of names for lots of steps
09:13:15 <chaals> ack fant
09:13:55 <dsinger> example: WD1 has section 4 ready, they get signification comment; WD2 says "section 4 is under major revision, but section 5 is ready now", WD3 says "section 4 is now fixed, and section 6 is ready; section 5 needs to be made consistent with section 4", and so on, until they finally have review on all sections. that would be OK by me
09:14:02 <Ralph> Fantasai: for the purpose of helping people track our documents better
09:14:06 <fantasai> fantasai: I don't think we should complicate the formal W3C Process too much, but for the purpose of having ppl track our documents better, even thoughs that aren't following closely
09:14:27 <Ralph> ... I would suggest for now we leave tools open for WGs to communicate status as they see it
09:14:35 <Ralph> ... and see what communications methods emerge
09:14:49 <Ralph> ... allow the WG to create its own labels for status
09:14:55 <Ralph> ... and to clean up the SoTD
09:15:17 <Ralph> ... some WG may choose to label a WD as "Last Call WD" without it being a formal step in the process
09:15:28 <Ralph> ... I might label something "Exploratory WD"
09:15:36 <Ralph> ... allow us to insert labels up front
09:15:43 <dsinger> I am perfectly happy with the process having WD->LCCR (or new name)->rec (or new name), with merely suggested common names for internal WDs and public WDs; the only thing I think a 'public WD' should be required to have is a status section
09:15:47 <Ralph> ... allow experimentation with such labels
09:15:57 <Ralph> ... see what patterns emerge
09:15:57 <chaals> ack me
09:15:57 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to respond to alan's suggestion
09:15:59 <mchampion> q+
09:16:01 <Ralph> ... may take 3-4 years
09:16:18 <mchampion> q?
09:16:27 <fantasai> chaals: right now, review stuff says "just publishing a draft that says 'please review'" doesn't qualify as getting wide review
09:16:32 <fantasai> chaals: Have to show that you got people responding
09:16:46 <fantasai> chaals: I'm comfortable with WGs saying "this is the bit that needs review now"
09:17:03 <fantasai> chaals: I thin what I'm going to do is try and strengthen how the document encourage this behavior
09:17:23 <fantasai> chaals: Rather than picking a particular name, inclined to go with fantasai's proposal
09:17:31 <fantasai> chaals: With that, I pass to Steve
09:17:38 <chaals> ack steve
09:17:38 <Zakim> SteveZ, you wanted to say developing the review community is also necessary
09:17:44 <fantasai> SteveZ: Will expand on what chaasls said
09:17:54 <fantasai> SteveZ: Part of what is important in this whole process is developing a reviewer community
09:17:56 <chaals> s/chaasls/chaals/
09:18:04 <fantasai> SteveZ: Part of that happens during chartering,
09:18:21 <fantasai> SteveZ: But also outside of that figure out which groups you need to send mail to about what's goin gon etc.
09:18:22 <dsinger> notes that common names for common concepts really help the people outside the WG, who need to work with multiple WGs
09:18:38 <chaals> zakim, agenda?
09:18:38 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
09:18:39 <Zakim> 1. naming stages [from chaals]
09:18:39 <Zakim> 2. gettting review [from chaals]
09:18:39 <Zakim> 3. implementation as a forcing function. [from chaals]
09:18:39 <Zakim> 4. LCCR cycling [from chaals]
09:18:39 <Zakim> 5. transition [from chaals]
09:18:54 <fantasai> mchampion: e.g. Judy wanted a heads up a few weeks ahead of time that xyz will happen so they can schedule time
09:19:14 <fantasai> SteveZ: Someone should appoint a liaison to coordinate with those groups
09:19:21 <dsinger> we have enough trouble with people outside follow the W3C process; it can't be that they have to follow the CSS process, the HTML process, and so on...!
09:19:27 <fantasai> chaals: Suggest we take up agenda item 5
09:19:32 <dsinger> agenda?
09:19:36 <fantasai> chaals: Assuming we make a transition, what will it be like?
09:19:37 <mchampion> q+
09:19:55 <chaals> Topic: Transition (ISSUE-39)
09:19:58 <mchampion> q+
09:20:04 <chaals> zakim, reopen the queue
09:20:05 <Zakim> ok, chaals, the speaker queue is open
09:20:11 <chaals> q+ mchampion
09:20:13 <fantasai> SteveZ: fantasai sent out the last word on this
09:20:18 <fantasai> SteveZ: Maybe start there
09:20:22 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/0104.html
09:20:22 <dsinger> q?
09:20:28 <chaals> q+ fantasai
09:20:29 <fantasai>    1. Any spec in WD or REC is automatically transitioned into the
09:20:29 <fantasai>       new rules for WD/REC, without any WG action. The next publication
09:20:29 <fantasai>       (whatever phase that may be) will thus follow the new process.
09:20:29 <fantasai>    2. Any spec in a transitional phase (LC/PR/PER) follows the current
09:20:30 <fantasai>       process until it gets to its next stable phase (WD/CR/REC),
09:20:32 <fantasai>       and from then on follows the new rules for WD/CR/REC.
09:20:32 <dsinger> q+ about TPWG
09:20:34 <fantasai>    3. Any spec in CR has three transitions available:
09:20:37 <fantasai>         - move to PR, if it is ready, and complete from there
09:20:38 <chaals> ack mchampion
09:20:39 <fantasai>         - republish as CR under the new rules
09:20:42 <fantasai>           [this combines the old LC/CR options for handling
09:20:44 <fantasai>            substantive/editorial edits]
09:20:47 <fantasai>         - move back to WD, if it needs substantially more work
09:20:49 <fantasai> mchampion: Should there be only one process?
09:20:52 <dsinger> q- about TPWG
09:20:54 <dsinger> q+
09:21:00 <fantasai> mchampion: Can different groups have different processes
09:21:15 <chaals> ack fant
09:21:31 <chaals> ack dsin
09:21:59 <fantasai> fantasai: I think for the clarity of the people in and around W3C, we should not have multiple processes
09:22:03 <fantasai> various++
09:22:10 <fantasai> s/++/+1/
09:22:50 <fantasai> szilles: small WGs might have trouble switching
09:23:00 <fantasai> dsinger: Tracking protection WG has as its goal to be in LC, will disrupt them
09:23:15 <chaals> ack ralp
09:23:22 <fantasai> szilles: One choice is WG chooses which process
09:23:51 <fantasai> Ralph: Because of wide spectrum between Tracking Protection which struggles with one process, vs other groups
09:24:01 <fantasai> Ralph: Don't think one schedule works for everyone, unles broad timeline with lots of options
09:24:16 <fantasai> Ralph: Don't recommend different documents under different processes
09:24:24 <fantasai> Ralph: but could choose to do that
09:24:33 <fantasai> Ralph: confusion within wg vs confusion of public?
09:24:47 <fantasai> Ralph: I thikn the confusion we ought to be worried about is confusion ofpublic, not confusion of WG
09:25:06 <dsinger> q+
09:25:08 <fantasai> Ralph: Though sensitive to sensitive groups like Tracking protection
09:25:10 <chaals> q+ paulc
09:25:17 <fantasai> paulc: This transition breaks Plan 2014
09:25:18 <chaals> ack paul
09:25:21 <chaals> q+
09:25:50 <chaals> ack dsin
09:25:59 <fantasai> paulc: Plan 2014 assumes same process for HTMl5 and extension specs
09:26:14 <chaals> ack me
09:26:17 <fantasai> dsinger: Need a transitional phase, can't do a big bang switch
09:26:26 <fantasai> chaals: my suggestion would be that we enable the process
09:26:33 <fantasai> chaals: Allow WGs to switch to it pretty much at will
09:26:40 <fantasai> chaals: But require them to switch certainly on rechartering
09:27:12 <SteveZ> q+
09:27:14 <fantasai> chaals: and after N, e.g. 1-2 years, force you to switch
09:27:27 <fantasai> chaals: I see that it would "break Plan 2014", but don't see what the actual damage would do
09:27:38 <fantasai> chaals: Certainly groups that will cry and scream
09:27:47 <fantasai> chaals: Ralphs point wrt 2 processes
09:27:58 <fantasai> chaals: But if some groups produce LCs and CRs and some groups produce CRs
09:28:04 <fantasai> chaals: The confusing difference is for the patent lawyers
09:28:12 <fantasai> chaals: Who need to know whether they're required to do review. How terrible
09:28:13 <astearns> q+ to say that outside confusion is a good reason to have CR and REC names
09:28:15 <chaals> ack steve
09:28:29 <paulc> q+
09:28:37 <fantasai> SteveZ: I would make point that dsigner just made, they probably don't know process anywya, just watch Call for Exclusions
09:28:46 <mchampion> q=
09:28:53 <dauwhe_> s/anywya/anyway/
09:28:55 <fantasai> SteveZ: I think the public probably doesn't understand the maturity steps
09:29:00 <mchampion> q+
09:29:04 <fantasai> SteveZ: Particularly if we call LCCR CR, in which case they'll hardly notice
09:29:11 <astearns> q- steve made my point
09:29:13 <chaals> zakim, close the queue
09:29:14 <Zakim> ok, chaals, the speaker queue is closed
09:29:21 <fantasai> SteveZ: I don't see a need to set a shift on rechartering, as long as you have a time limit
09:29:21 <mchampion> Q-
09:29:25 <fantasai> SteveZ: Let's us deal with other things
09:29:26 <astearns> q-
09:29:37 <fantasai> SteveZ: Other thing that Ralph made is, new groups always start under the new plan
09:29:54 <fantasai> SteveZ: But allowing groups to shift when they can, syaing you got to shift within 2 years, that will get there eventually
09:30:02 <fantasai> SteveZ: Get there fast and won't gore the ox of ppl getting done
09:30:07 <fantasai> SteveZ: If DNT isn't done in 2 years, may never be done
09:30:08 <chaals> ack pa
09:30:28 <fantasai> paulc: I'm becoming more convinced that just making LC optional just makes a lot of problems go away
09:30:47 <fantasai> paulc: If a working group like CSS wants to skip LC because they've had sufficient reviw during WD stage, go directly to CR
09:30:50 <fantasai> paulc: fine
09:31:21 <chaals> q+
09:31:27 <fantasai> paulc: Instead of making CR optional, make CR mandatory and LC optional
09:31:41 <fantasai> fantasai: I think that that makes a lot of sense
09:32:19 <fantasai> paulc: exclusion opportunity starts no later than LC or CR, whicever you get to first
09:32:25 <fantasai> paulc: Then you get all benefits of both pieces of process
09:32:35 <fantasai> paulc: Do want to recognize point wrt confusion of outside
09:32:46 <fantasai> paulc: I was describing my experience as chair
09:32:59 <fantasai> chaals: We don't optimize for chairs, we optimize our chairs
09:33:24 <fantasai> chaals: We're closed, thanks everyone
09:33:35 <Ralph> fantasai++
09:41:36 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
09:42:02 <dauwhe_> dauwhe_ has joined #w3process
09:44:00 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
09:44:32 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
09:44:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html chaals
09:47:51 <chaals> Meeting: W3 Process revision - TPAC
09:47:55 <chaals> Chair: Chaals
09:48:23 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
09:49:22 <chaals> Present: Sylvain, DaveC, Fantasai, DavidSinger, SteveZ, AlanStearns, Ralph, Chaals, PaulCotton, MikeChampion
09:50:16 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
09:50:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html chaals
09:53:02 <sgalineau> sgalineau has joined #w3process
09:55:03 <dsinger> dsinger has left #w3process
10:13:45 <Ralph__> Ralph__ has joined #w3process
10:19:33 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
11:23:44 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
12:20:21 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
12:35:02 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
13:35:32 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
14:36:28 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
15:35:35 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process
15:56:55 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #w3process