15:33:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:33:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-irc
15:33:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:33:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:33:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:33:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:33:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:33:29 <trackbot> Date: 13 January 2014
15:33:34 <koalie> Zakim, this will be chap7
15:33:35 <Zakim> ok, koalie; I see Team_JEFF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 27 minutes
15:35:56 <koalie> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0007.html summary and minutes of prvious TF meeting [2014-01-06]
15:36:01 <koalie> scribe: CoralieMercier
15:36:04 <koalie> scribenick: koalie
15:36:09 <koalie> chair: SteveZilles
15:36:14 <koalie> regrets: RalphSwick
15:36:51 <koalie> s/<koalie> ->/<koaliie> ->/G
15:53:59 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:59:05 <koalie> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0008.html
15:59:16 <koalie> koalie has changed the topic to: 13-Jan CHAP7 meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0008.html
15:59:31 <koalie> agenda+ Raised issues 56-80
15:59:38 <koalie> agenda+ Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review
15:59:45 <koalie> agenda+ Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization
16:00:18 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has now started
16:00:25 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:00:45 <Zakim> +koalie
16:00:51 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
16:01:32 <Zakim> +SteveZ
16:02:16 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #w3process
16:02:24 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
16:03:16 <Zakim> +fantasai
16:04:02 <koalie> s/prv/prev/
16:04:22 <koalie> Zakim, agenda?
16:04:22 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:04:23 <Zakim> 1. Raised issues 56-80 [from koalie]
16:04:23 <Zakim> 2. Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review [from koalie]
16:04:23 <Zakim> 3. Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization [from koalie]
16:05:06 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, koalie (muted), Mike_Champion, SteveZ, fantasai
16:05:17 <koalie> [meeting starts]
16:05:46 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 1
16:05:46 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Raised issues 56-80" taken up [from koalie]
16:06:03 <jeff> q+
16:06:03 <koalie> SteveZ: Let's go over http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised
16:06:09 <koalie> issue-56?
16:06:09 <trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? -- raised
16:06:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
16:06:57 <koalie> SteveZ: issue-55 may be an AB issue but not necessarily part of the process
16:07:27 <koalie> SteveZ: re: issue-56, I raised it in response to Larry Masinter
16:07:33 <koalie> ... who felt if we have dependencies
16:07:52 <koalie> ... 1) identified dependencies, in which case WG is obliged to notify
16:08:01 <koalie> ... [let me back up]
16:08:28 <koalie> ... Not sure the process requires a group notifies groups listed in the dependencies section of the charter
16:08:33 <koalie> ... but it would be a good idea
16:08:39 <koalie> ... thoughts from others?
16:08:40 <koalie> q?
16:09:08 <koalie> ack j
16:09:20 <koalie> Jeff: I was on the queue before you started 56
16:09:27 <koalie> ... I'll answer your question
16:09:44 <koalie> ... Isn't this the issue we talked about a lot about what has to be done for wide-review
16:09:55 <koalie> ... and how much we want to dictate in the process
16:10:03 <koalie> ... or leave it to WG?
16:10:15 <koalie> ... the former is what I thought we'd discussed
16:11:07 <koalie> SteveZ: What I was concerned about is to ensure a group has cleared its dependencies
16:11:10 <koalie> ... let me check that
16:11:37 <koalie> fantasai: I think it's not unreasonable for the process to require some advance notice before stepping to LCCR and REC
16:11:50 <koalie> ... up to the WG to figure out how
16:12:34 <fantasai> to make sure that that announcement is pretty muchignored because everyone has reviewed the spec already
16:12:35 <koalie> SteveZ: "A recommended practice" is what section 7.2.2 mentions
16:12:56 <koalie> ... What I think Larry was looking for is about the general public
16:13:16 <koalie> Jeff: There is specific verbiage on the 4th line which is recommended as a replacement for the current language
16:13:24 <koalie> ... I have no objection for the proposed verbiage.
16:14:07 <koalie> fantasai: That seems @@
16:14:14 <jeff> s/@@/ok/
16:14:21 <koalie> Mike: That's OK
16:14:42 <koalie> ... at one time I had concerns but with this wording I'm not concerned too much.
16:15:06 <koalie> SteveZ: proposed RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review
16:15:16 <jeff> qq?
16:15:18 <jeff> q?
16:15:21 <jeff> q+
16:15:29 <koalie> RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review
16:16:35 <koalie> issue-57?
16:16:35 <trackbot> issue-57 -- Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts -- raised
16:16:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
16:16:58 <koalie> SteveZ: the proposed resolution is to use  "make available" instead of "publish"
16:17:08 <koalie> ... any objection?
16:17:34 <koalie> SteveZ: hearing none, setting issue-57 to pending review
16:17:54 <koalie> RESOLUTION: moving issue-57 to pending review
16:17:56 <koalie> ack jeff
16:18:11 <koalie> Jeff: these TF calls are less effective when the editor isn't available
16:18:21 <koalie> ... I request the chair locates the editor
16:18:28 <koalie> ... and maybe we need to reschedule the time of that call
16:18:37 <koalie> ... Also we have an AB call next Monday
16:18:46 <koalie> ... we'll need to share a status with the AB
16:18:54 <koalie> SteveZ: I accept the challenge
16:19:05 <koalie> Mike: Do we adjourn until Chaals is on the call?
16:19:14 <koalie> SteveZ: There are issues I think we can make progress on
16:19:24 <koalie> ... I meant to use the time to go over them
16:19:40 <koalie> Jeff: I agree on the condition that when you catch up with chaals you tell them what we resolved
16:19:48 <koalie> ... so that we don't re-hash them next time
16:19:58 <koalie> s/resolved/decided/
16:20:05 <koalie> SteveZ: that would be my intent
16:20:10 <koalie> Mike: WFM
16:20:29 <koalie> SteveZ: I can't garantee that I'll get in touch with chaals this week
16:21:49 <koalie> issue-58?
16:21:49 <trackbot> issue-58 -- Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being progressed -- raised
16:21:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58
16:22:16 <koalie> SteveZ: I raised this one about Bullet 2 of section 7.2.3
16:22:57 <koalie> ... I think this is out of date
16:23:26 <koalie> ... [the suggestion was to clarify this is about "the current specification"]
16:23:36 <koalie> ... There is no 7.2.3 section anymore
16:23:50 <koalie> Jeff: It appears to apply to 7.2.4
16:23:59 <koalie> SteveZ: Yes
16:25:01 <koalie> ... any objection to clarify this is about "the current specification"?
16:25:06 <koalie> Mike: That's fine.
16:25:16 <koalie> RESOLUTION: moving issue-58 to pending review
16:25:30 <koalie> issue-60?
16:25:30 <trackbot> issue-60 -- Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution -- raised
16:25:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60
16:25:32 <jeff> q+
16:25:50 <koalie> SteveZ: I know this is one chaals is positioned on and I agree with
16:26:04 <koalie> ... Art Barstow said we should move the draft to github
16:26:17 <koalie> ... I don't think it will work with the time-frame we are working on
16:26:31 <koalie> ... and comments should be done on the mailing list or during these TF meetings
16:26:38 <koalie> ... I propose to close this issue
16:27:06 <koalie> Mike: the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand to work on this document, perhaps because this is not on github
16:27:26 <koalie> ... on the other hand, if we were making these changes in a github repo, we might no be waiting for chaals
16:27:45 <koalie> ... it is something to think about.
16:28:04 <koalie> SteveZ: Chaals has already accepted Elika as a co-editor, and I can help too
16:28:11 <koalie> ... Your observation is a good one
16:28:20 <koalie> fantasai: It's in a repository at the W3C
16:28:37 <koalie> ... it should be fairly easy to acces that for someone in the community
16:29:06 <koalie> s/acces/access/
16:29:31 <koalie> ... I don't see particular benefits in the [github] case
16:29:56 <koalie> ack jeff
16:30:01 <koalie> Jeff: I agree that we should close it
16:30:17 <koalie> ... I would like to note that chaals said in his e-mail that putting the draft on github
16:30:23 <koalie> ... would generate extra work
16:30:25 <jeff> q-
16:30:34 <koalie> RESOLUTION: issue-60 closed, not accepted.
16:30:50 <koalie> issue-61?
16:30:50 <trackbot> issue-61 -- Move the Acknowledgements to a separate Appendix at the end of the doc -- raised
16:30:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/61
16:31:42 <koalie> SteveZ: We can move the acknoledgement section to a separate appendix but we're editing only chapter 7,
16:31:50 <koalie> ... so we could make that issue "pending review"
16:31:54 <koalie> ... thoughts on that?
16:32:12 <koalie> ... that is issue-61, 62, 63, 64
16:32:35 <koalie> ... all are things that will naturally happen when we publish a revised process with revised chapter 7 in it
16:33:01 <koalie> ... I'd propose to mark these as pending review that will happen when we publish a new document
16:33:04 <koalie> ... any objections?
16:33:07 <koalie> [none]
16:33:36 <koalie> RESOLUTION: move issue-61, 62, 63 and 64 to pending review, all will happen when we publish a new document
16:34:15 <koalie> issue-65?
16:34:15 <trackbot> issue-65 -- Chapter 7: define stable and unstable -- raised
16:34:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/65
16:34:32 <koalie> Jeff: do we know in which part of the document we use "stable" or "unstable"?
16:35:30 <fantasai> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/tip/tr.html
16:35:32 <koalie> fantasai: cf. chaals reply
16:35:36 <koalie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0020.html
16:35:42 <fantasai> "maximize consensus about the content of stable technical reports"
16:35:43 <koalie> [[ ISSUE-65 is about defining the terms "stable" and "unstable". I believe
16:35:43 <koalie> they are used in their normal sense and so definition is unnecessary, and
16:35:44 <koalie> propose closing the issue. ]]
16:36:02 <fantasai> "A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference for a document that is not intended to be a specification requiring conformance"
16:36:08 <koalie> [SteveZ reading from the draft]
16:36:12 <fantasai> "may request publication of a Working Draft even if its content is considered unstable"
16:37:20 <koalie> fantasai: I don't see a problem, I think we should close it
16:37:27 <koalie> Jeff: we should explain the reason
16:37:46 <koalie> SteveZ: I agree
16:39:52 <SteveZ> The reason for closing is: the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in nonmormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretatin it would not have significant consequence
16:40:14 <koalie> s/tatin/tation/
16:40:18 <koalie> Jeff: yes
16:40:57 <koalie> RESOLUTION: Close issue-65 with reason: "the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant consequence"
16:41:07 <koalie> issue-65: closing with reason "the normal English definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant consequence"
16:41:07 <trackbot> Notes added to issue-65 Chapter 7: define stable and unstable.
16:41:37 <koalie> issue-66?
16:41:37 <trackbot> issue-66 -- Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems -- raised
16:41:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/66
16:42:34 <jeff> q+
16:42:48 <koalie> Mike: wearing my AC hat on I don't know what position Microsoft might have
16:43:30 <koalie> ... Resolving some of these issues by making LC optional and mapping the process verbiage to make clear the patents and disclosure requirements are triggered at CR or what we would call the Last Call
16:43:53 <koalie> ... What an English speaking would understand by "last call"
16:43:58 <jeff> zakim, please provide some caffeine to Mike Champion
16:43:58 <Zakim> I don't understand you, jeff
16:44:20 <koalie> SteveZ: Right now the proposal is that there are two years to implement
16:44:39 <koalie> ... I'd reply to Art and Paul that we're not trying to rush, but implement in a positive manner
16:44:50 <jeff> q?
16:44:58 <koalie> ... I think the AB is willing to consider input that comes from practical problems
16:45:02 <koalie> .... I'm OK with closing this
16:45:18 <koalie> ... with Jeff's comment that it's not specific enough to deal with
16:45:54 <koalie> Mike: I'm making a specific suggestion that we resolve it by leaving an optional LC period for people who run big slow-moving WGs
16:46:24 <koalie> ... Overall I'm not interested to optimize the process for the CSS WG, to pick one
16:46:45 <koalie> ... that knows how to make modular specs.
16:46:51 <koalie> ...  We have other groups, such as TPWG
16:47:18 <koalie> SteveZ: We discussed amending charters with expectations in terms of LC
16:47:23 <koalie> Mike: Thanks for reminding me of that
16:47:34 <koalie> Jeff: Is that in the resolution of some issue?
16:47:44 <koalie> SteveZ: It was suggested as a best practices
16:47:55 <koalie> ... Perhaps the best place is in the section about "wide review"
16:48:18 <koalie> Jeff: In my mind, if someone wants to raise an issue, there are groups where LC is the right time
16:48:35 <koalie> ... an issue like that is valid for this TF to consider
16:49:09 <koalie> ... can we resolve issue-83 and point it in issue-66?
16:49:12 <koalie> issue-83?
16:49:12 <trackbot> Sorry, but issue-83 does not exist.
16:49:35 <koalie> s/resolve issue-83/create and resolve issue-83/
16:50:10 <koalie> Jeff: We've had an extremely long conversation in the community about why we want to change the process and the feedback is that it's a good idea
16:50:20 <koalie> ... if some don't want to go in the direction of agility,
16:50:31 <koalie> ... I'm OK to acccommodating it,
16:50:37 <koalie> ... but not at the last minute
16:50:56 <koalie> SteveZ: This came up at a last meeting, let me see..
16:51:03 <koalie> Mike: OK, I'll raise an issue.
16:51:36 <koalie> Jeff: If it's not part of the process if it's in the guidebook, we have to agree to put it in the process first
16:51:49 <koalie> SteveZ: I'm looking into December meeting minutes
16:52:15 <koalie> Mikes: Our original mission was to try and change the process to improve it within the patent policy, and there's been complexity
16:52:32 <koalie> ... We can give advice, but at the end of the day, we're contstrained by the patent policy
16:52:35 <koalie> s/conts/cons/
16:53:12 <koalie> Mike: I'll file an issue and suggest this as a way of resolving some of the concerns various people have raised.
16:53:59 <koalie> SteveZ: the issue is specifically that we suggest to WG to put an optional LC into their charter
16:54:34 <koalie> fantasai: the issue is about review
16:54:56 <koalie> ... also, if this is about having a stage in developement to get comments,
16:55:19 <koalie> ... then they can create that phase for them, and we need to clearly label that phase
16:55:29 <koalie> ... we should be solving this as a more general case
16:55:37 <koalie> ... that of better labelling
16:55:55 <koalie> ... if groups could create their own labels, would it be helpful to communicate this?
16:56:25 <koalie> ... other groups might decide on 3 @@@
16:56:35 <koalie> ... I don't think we should be changing the process document
16:56:48 <koalie> ... I think we do need to allow people to experiment
16:57:09 <koalie> ... It would be good if they can come up with useful labels
16:57:25 <koalie> ... and a given group can pick what they think might work for them
16:57:33 <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0012.html
16:58:04 <koalie> SteveZ: If I remember correctly, you accepted an action to document this
16:58:13 <koalie> fantasai: I don't recall, but I can try.
16:59:27 <koalie> SteveZ: I propose to leave that issue open until we have a clear statement of work happening
16:59:30 <koalie> q?
16:59:34 <koalie> ack jeff
16:59:53 <koalie> Jeff: what does that mean?
17:00:02 <koalie> SteveZ: either till we get an issue-83
17:00:15 <koalie> ... or when we have a proposal to update the document
17:00:27 <koalie> Jeff: Are we assigning an action?
17:00:39 <koalie> SteveZ: I asked Elika
17:01:26 <koalie> ACTION: fantasai Describe experiment of wide-review
17:01:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Describe experiment of wide-review [on Elika Etemad - due 2014-01-20].
17:01:39 <koalie> Jeff: Is this to address issue-66?
17:01:48 <koalie> SteveZ: That's fine with me
17:02:02 <koalie> issue-66: see action-26 on elika to Describe experiment of wide-review
17:02:02 <trackbot> Notes added to issue-66 Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems.
17:02:33 <koalie> action-23: see issue-66 "Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems"
17:02:33 <trackbot> Notes added to action-23 Get in touch with art about issue-50 and check assessment.
17:02:34 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
17:02:44 <koalie> topic: Next meeting
17:02:53 <koalie> SteveZ: no meeting next week because there's an AB on
17:02:55 <Zakim> -Jeff
17:02:56 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:02:57 <koalie> s/AB on/AB one
17:03:02 <Zakim> -SteveZ
17:03:10 <koalie> SteveZ: Next meeting is 27-Jan
17:03:21 <koalie> trackbot, end meeting
17:03:21 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:03:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Jeff, koalie, Mike_Champion, SteveZ, fantasai
17:03:24 <Zakim> -koalie
17:03:25 <Zakim> Team_JEFF()11:00AM has ended
17:03:25 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, koalie, Mike_Champion, SteveZ, fantasai
17:03:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
17:03:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:30 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-actions.rdf :
17:03:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: fantasai Describe experiment of wide-review [1]
17:03:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-irc#T17-01-26
17:05:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
17:05:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-irc
17:05:14 <koalie> regrets+ chaals
17:05:21 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
17:05:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html koalie
17:08:55 <koalie> i/Topic:/RESOLUTION: Elika took an action to describe experiment of getting "wide review", Mike will raise a new issue. This issue is pending until there is a new issue raised, or a proposal to update the document.
17:08:59 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
17:08:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html koalie
17:09:29 <koalie> i/topic:/RESOLUTION: Elika took an action to describe experiment of getting "wide review", Mike will raise a new issue. This issue is pending until there is a new issue raised, or a proposal to update the document.
17:09:33 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
17:09:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html koalie
17:09:50 <koalie> RRSAgent, bye
17:09:52 <koalie> Zakim, bye
17:09:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
17:09:58 <koalie> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:10:03 <koalie> RRSAgent, bye
17:10:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items