Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

06 Jan 2014


See also: IRC log


Jeff Jaffe, Mike Champion, Steve Zilles, Coralie Mercier (scribe), fantasai
Ralph Swick, Charles McCathie Nevile
Steve Zilles
Coralie Mercier


<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2014

<koaliie> Previous (2013-12-16)

<scribe> scribe: Coralie

<scribe> scribenick: koalie

<SteveZ> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0001.html

Propose closing issue 39


<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

Jeff: During the break, I had an opportunity to do a fairly extensive review of the revisions; sent comments to chaals
... In terms of closing issue-39, I don't recall if I've reviewed it or it it's something else

SteveZ: The text was published on 2-Dec

<SteveZ> Text for issue 39: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html

SteveZ: People seemed to be happy with it when we discussed it at the 16-Dec call

<koaliie> 16-Dec Call discussion of issue-39

Mike: I'm OK, it's what we agreed on last time we talked.

Jeff: On re-reading the new process, I learned that when we enter candidate rec, there's an AC review
... I was surprised because you don't say that anywhere
... There's a section 7.4 called Candidate Recommendation
... in it it says AC reps can appeal, but nowhere does it say there is a review.

SteveZ: OK.
... I thought it did at one time; I tend to agree, looking at it now.

Jeff: I have a variety of questions
... including one with starting the review at candidate rec
... we should state it, if we want the AC review to start at Candidate Rec
... "provisional approval" is mentioned, but what are the conditions? when does that happen?

SteveZ: It doesn't even say who makes the request for provisiional approval

Jeff: Further, it should be implicit that a group should close things, namely AC review, in order to publish under the new process.
... So I don't know if that belongs to issue-39
... but I'd be hesitant to close it until I had a chance to have a dialogue with chaals

SteveZ: My first choice would be to fix 7.4 so we clearly start an AC review
... and 7.1 so it's clear what starts a provisitional approval
... and that 39 stays the way it is.
... 39 is just a transition document
... not necessarily part of the process, at some point it ceases to have value.
... I think you should raise the two issues we talked about; they are important.
... I'm not sure what happened there; I'm reasonably sure chaals is on board with that.

Jeff: Yes.
... he confirmed it was the intent.
... but then I did a more complete review and noticed these discrepancies.
... The problem as I see it: If you send a document at CR and features are dropped, the AC wouldn't know about it.

SteveZ: 7.5.1 documents that

Jeff: I see that, what's missing is the meaning of "provisional approval" (not dropping features)

Mike: Let's not reinvent what a Proposed Recommendation is.

SteveZ: The change is subtle
... Provisional approval is when the Director says this really is the LC and you have 28 days to raise and close an issue
... the attempt is to say that the AC review starts at CR and ends 28 days after LC.

Jeff: Yes, so long as it's clearly documented.

Mike: How is that different from PR status?

SteveZ: PR starts AC Review

Mike: I agree with the substance of the change that AC review is welcome at LCCR (or whatever we call it these days)

<fantasai> Mike++

Mike: we have a dilemma: keeping familiar words or creating words that sound different but are so similar
... Is that change worth the confusion it causes?

Fantasai: One thing to notice is that we're giving a heads-up on things not meant to change and you have 4 weeks to object
... we have the exact same thing at WD to CR where we want to give heads-up
... I agree to not have a different W3C status, we should be treating them the same in the Process

Mike: I've liked the philosophy all along of signaling and making things explicit

Jeff: To support some of Mike's points with the provisional approval notion, it's not just a change of name, we're also asking the Director to jump in the middle of the process at CR
... Somewhere in the middle the Director is to give his provisional approval and we're still in CR

SteveZ: I'm ambivalent on that. Chaals had strong feelings. It might be a topic to take up with the full AB.

Jeff: The more immediate problem is to fix the text.

SteveZ: +1
... Do we know when chaals is back from vacation?

fantasai: He sent an e-mail
... but I got the date wrong, nevermind.

SteveZ: Jeff, if you could submit the issues, that would be helpful.
... about what needs to go in 7.4 and 7.5.1

Jeff: Yes.

SteveZ: Let's go back to issue-39...
... If we fix 7.4 and 7.5.1, your issue isn't an issue because the process will tell you what to do
... Do we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text Ralph sent?

[no objection]

RESOLUTION: we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text Ralph sent

close issue-39

<trackbot> Closed issue-39.

issue-39: CHAP7 TF agreed to close issue-39 with Ralph's text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-39 Managing the transition to a new TR cycle.

Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization

[discussion of classes of changes and substantive change]

SteveZ: I'll ask chaals to make a combination of change as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/thread.html#msg0
... With chaals not on this call, it doesn't make sense to take up topic 4 "Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review"
... Jeff, does it make sense to discuss the 16 issues you raised?

Discuss raised issues

<koaliie> Raised issues

Jeff: In 7.3.1 and 7.2.2 conflict @@

[discussion about maturity levels and what criteria apply]

Jeff: in 7.5.2 talks about testing requirement, but 7.4 doesn't have testing requirement

SteveZ: 3rd bullet in 7.4
... "must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,"
... 7.5.2 has two similar statements that could be combined
... bullet 2 and 6

Jeff: If testing isn't required, bullet 6 in 7.5.2 shouldn't mention it.
... I'm raising the issue.

SteveZ: It's a valid issue.
... a possible quick fix is merging bullet 2 and 6, perhaps with an "e.g."
... Anything else for this call?
... Thanks all, and thanks Jeff for this extended review.
... next meeting 13-Jan

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/01/07 11:15:31 $