14:09:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:09:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-w3process-irc
14:10:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:10:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:10:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:10:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
14:10:04 <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2014
14:10:20 <Dsinger_> Zakim, this will be w3process
14:10:20 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Dsinger_
14:10:41 <Dsinger_> Zakim, this will be w3cprocess
14:10:41 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Dsinger_
14:11:11 <SteveZ_> Unless Chaals is on the call, there does not seem to be much point in having a meeting because the open actions are primarly his
14:12:06 <SteveZ_> Jeff said he may miss the meeting
14:12:46 <Dsinger_> Zakim, who is here?
14:12:46 <Zakim> sorry, Dsinger_, I don't know what conference this is
14:12:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, SteveZ_, Dsinger_, chaals, timeless, cwilso, trackbot
14:12:56 <SteveZ_> I will wait for 2.5 minutes more than quit
14:13:23 <Dsinger_> Ok, Steve and Dave on the phone, who else? Do we have an effective call?
14:13:32 <chaals> [Some idiot from Iberdrola thought they have the right to visit a house and demand documents from anyone they find there, and needed disabusing of the notion]
14:13:54 <Dsinger_> 3 is very small
14:14:14 <chaals> zakim, code?
14:14:14 <Zakim> sorry, chaals, I don't know what conference this is
14:14:38 <chaals> zakim, this is w3p
14:14:38 <Zakim> sorry, chaals, I do not see a conference named 'w3p' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:14:45 <chaals> trackbot, start meeting
14:14:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:14:49 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:14:50 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
14:14:50 <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2014
14:14:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:15:53 <chaals> zakim, this is proc
14:15:53 <Zakim> ok, chaals; that matches AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM
14:16:07 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:16:15 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
14:16:15 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
14:16:21 <chaals> zakim, who is here?
14:16:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, SteveZ, chaals
14:16:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, SteveZ_, Dsinger_, chaals, timeless, cwilso, trackbot
14:17:20 <Zakim> +timeless
14:20:59 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:20:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:21:24 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:21:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:21:28 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:21:43 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
14:22:03 <timeless> scribe: timeless
14:22:15 <timeless> [ Discussion about chaals needing to review the previous two meetings' minutes ]
14:22:40 <chaals> CMN: I will review the minutes and my Action items. I hope to produce a new draft later tonight.
14:22:48 <timeless> s/chaals/scribe/
14:23:12 <timeless> ... want to remove coordination-groups
14:23:22 <chaals> … I will then propose removing "Good Standing requirements", "Coordination Groups" (since I believe they are redundant with working groups) from the document.
14:23:27 <timeless> s/chaals/scribe/
14:23:54 <timeless> Zakim, who is speaking?
14:24:05 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dsinger (100%)
14:24:12 <timeless> Dsinger_: when is good standing used?
14:24:20 <timeless> SteveZ_: it's used for voting and attendance
14:24:29 <timeless> Dsinger_: is it ever used?
14:24:32 <chaals> s/SteveZ_/chaals/
14:24:34 <timeless> SteveZ_: history on good standing
14:24:54 <timeless> ... we were told by Oracle
14:25:00 <timeless> ... Oracle bought SUN
14:25:06 <timeless> ... unless you had a rule for
14:25:12 <timeless> ... people who don't stay up on issues
14:25:17 <timeless> ... cause discussion on issues to bog down
14:25:24 <timeless> ... because you'd redo the conversations you already had
14:25:28 <timeless> q+ timeless
14:25:31 <chaals> q+
14:25:40 <timeless> ... so unless you had been involved in the discussions leading up to vote
14:25:49 <timeless> ... you shouldn't be involved in the vote
14:25:55 <timeless> ... It was used in XSL discussions / votes
14:26:05 <timeless> ... but XSL used Consensus voting instead of majority voting
14:26:16 <timeless> ... it's not clear to me that it served a useful purpose
14:26:25 <timeless> ... it might have served a useful purpose in HTML discussions
14:26:28 <timeless> ... but that's another ball game
14:26:30 <timeless> ack me
14:27:37 <chaals> Timeless: I was involved in a recent mobile group which suffered from people coming in and revisiting issues because people hadn't attended meetings where issues were discussed. I wished we had enforced a good standing policy.
14:28:12 <chaals> … A process is useful but it requires someone to actively ensure that it is used. When it is rarely used people are not aware of it or how it works.
14:28:33 <chaals> … If we were to keep it we should encourage chairs to be aware of the when/how/why and encourage them to use it. Otherwise we should drop it.
14:29:01 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:29:01 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:29:05 <Dsinger_> Dsinger_ has joined #w3process
14:29:05 <chaals> … The group I talked about had many attendees and significant churn, so people would come in and talk about old issues that had already been closed (more than once)
14:29:14 <chaals> q?
14:29:18 <timeless> SteveZ_: one reason to drop it is
14:29:23 <timeless> ... too few chairs wanted to enforce it
14:29:33 <timeless> ... some of the User Members couldn't participate on a regular basis
14:29:45 <timeless> ... and didn't want their managers to see them as not-in-good-standing in the working group
14:29:50 <timeless> ... the term became a perjorative
14:30:01 <chaals> q?
14:30:04 <timeless> ... the main value of user members is they gave you actual feedback of whether they're working or not
14:30:21 <timeless> XX: i think it's fine to enforce it if
14:30:36 <timeless> YY: we can enforce it if we give people time to get into good standing
14:30:40 <timeless> s/XX/Dsinger_/
14:30:50 <chaals> s/YY/DSinger
14:30:56 <timeless> ZZ: we could change the wording "voting status"
14:31:02 <Dsinger_> Q?
14:31:05 <Zakim> -chaals
14:31:07 <timeless> SteveZ_: a lot of groups have gone away from decisions by voting
14:31:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:31:51 <timeless> Zakim, [ip is chaals
14:31:51 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
14:32:09 <timeless> chaals: there are groups like webapps that explicitly refuse to use good-standing
14:32:15 <timeless> ... but there are groups that are/could
14:32:23 <timeless> ... choose to insert it into their charter
14:32:26 <Dsinger_> I can certainly think of fields where uninformed people could be problematic
14:32:30 <timeless> ... but they should enforce it
14:32:40 <timeless> SteveZ_: i agree with you
14:32:53 <timeless> ... i hear you saying that we could define something /like/ good standing in the process document
14:32:54 <chaals> s/enforce it/enforce it both fairly and uniformly/
14:33:05 <timeless> ... and say "there's an option to include this in the charter", but it's not a requirement
14:33:10 <timeless> chaals: no. that's not what i'm saying
14:33:37 <timeless> ... i'm saying "groups may in their charter have additional rules for eligibility to vote/attend meetings/and the like"
14:33:48 <timeless> ... "... such rules should be uniformly enforced."
14:34:02 <timeless> SteveZ_: we have "the charters may include additional material not in conflict with this document"
14:34:06 <timeless> ... we have examples there
14:34:09 <Dsinger_> I think it would be more helpful to document it and make it optional
14:34:14 <chaals> q+
14:34:26 <Dsinger_> Q+
14:34:38 <timeless> ... we could say that "if you have such rules, they should be as if they are in this document"
14:34:48 <timeless> chaals: documenting rules effectively is a fools errand
14:35:04 <timeless> Dsinger_: we should provide enough text that if a group wants to have one
14:35:17 <timeless> ... i think we should have more than a couple of sentences
14:35:21 <timeless> chaals: i'll make a proposal to the ML
14:35:31 <timeless> SteveZ_: i want to repeat one thing timeless said
14:35:35 <timeless> ... the problem he's concerned about
14:35:46 <timeless> ... and the problem that originally prompted it
14:35:50 <timeless> ... was note voting
14:35:58 <chaals> q+
14:36:02 <timeless> ... but people distracting discussion because they weren't paying attention
14:36:05 <chaals> q- later
14:36:06 <timeless> timeless: yes
14:36:20 <timeless> SteveZ_: having rules to allow the chair to declare out-of-order
14:36:25 <timeless> ... for discussion would make more sense
14:36:27 <timeless> ack Dsinger_
14:36:32 <Dsinger_> Q-
14:36:39 <timeless> ack chaals
14:36:49 <timeless> chaals: the problem that timeless identified
14:36:57 <timeless> ... is that new people come into a group and raise an issue
14:37:00 <timeless> ... this is tricky because
14:37:07 <timeless> ... there are a number of cases, where one person raises an issue
14:37:10 <timeless> ... they're shouted down
14:37:16 <timeless> ... they leave the group in discust
14:37:31 <timeless> ... another person joins the group, raises the issue, they're shouted down, they leave the group in discust
14:37:40 <timeless> ... there are a number of examples of this
14:37:44 <Dsinger_> Q+
14:37:48 <timeless> ... good-standing isn't the right tool
14:37:54 <timeless> ... an issue tracker is a better tool
14:38:09 <chaals> ack ds
14:38:10 <timeless> q+ to say that there were minutes and resolutions and iirc an issue tracker
14:38:17 <timeless> Dsinger_: i agree
14:38:24 <timeless> SteveZ_: it isn't immediately clear to me that good standing is needed
14:38:53 <timeless> Dsinger_: good standing is trying to avoid the issue where you have a number of people who aren't up to speed on the group, they don't understand the history/context
14:39:09 <timeless> ... the other example is technical groups where you don't want people who don't understand the subject-matter
14:39:14 <timeless> ... security/crypto groups
14:39:26 <timeless> ... but people can maintain good standing, and it doesn't help you there
14:39:38 <timeless> ... people can be disruptive
14:39:44 <timeless> ... the solution is firm chairing and issue tracking
14:39:50 <timeless> ack me
14:39:51 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to say that there were minutes and resolutions and iirc an issue tracker
14:39:55 <timeless> SteveZ_: chaals is working on his action items
14:39:59 <timeless> ... i'm working on mine
14:40:09 <timeless> Topic: AOB
14:40:21 <timeless> chaals: should we have had the whatwg flare up on the w3process list
14:40:25 <timeless> s/chaals/Dsinger_/
14:40:38 <timeless> chaals: unless someone wants to blacklist whatwg specs a-priori
14:40:45 <timeless> ... i don't think there's anything to do
14:40:46 <Zakim> -chaals
14:40:49 <timeless> SteveZ_: Dsinger_, i agree with you
14:41:02 <timeless> ... chaals has twice said he didn't think this was the right place
14:41:13 <timeless> Dsinger_: i raised the same question "i'm not sure what this discussion is doing here"
14:41:15 <timeless> timeless: +1
14:41:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:41:22 <timeless> SteveZ_: i don't know what ArtB wanted
14:41:25 <chaals> zakim, mute me
14:41:25 <Zakim> sorry, chaals, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:41:29 <timeless> ... i read through the messages, i still don't know
14:41:36 <timeless> Zakim, [ is chaals
14:41:36 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
14:41:43 <Dsinger_> Q-
14:41:53 <chaals> q+
14:41:58 <timeless> SteveZ_: chaals, is it ok for me to say "i don't know why this discussion is going on here"
14:42:06 <timeless> ... the problem is that i don't think there's another list
14:42:15 <timeless> q+ to say i think the concern is that it was in private
14:42:15 <chaals> ack me
14:42:40 <timeless> chaals: i was at a loss to find any relevance to the continuation of the thread
14:42:59 <timeless> SteveZ_: do we run the risk of closing issue-134 at this meeting
14:43:00 <Dsinger_> Issue-124?
14:43:01 <trackbot> Issue-124 -- Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs -- raised
14:43:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/124
14:43:10 <timeless> ... that ArtB gets upset?
14:43:22 <timeless> s/134/124/
14:43:32 <timeless> SteveZ_: i'd like to close it as irrelevant to the process
14:43:34 <timeless> q?
14:43:36 <timeless> ack me
14:43:36 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to say i think the concern is that it was in private
14:43:47 <timeless> chaals:  you can say that the group won't address this
14:43:52 <timeless> SteveZ_: i'll wait until next week
14:44:10 <timeless> chaals: raising inflammatory issues isn't helpful
14:44:14 <timeless> SteveZ_: no action
14:44:20 <timeless> ... unless there's something else
14:44:21 <chaals> s/chaals/DSinger/
14:44:25 <timeless> ... i'd propose we adjourn
14:44:59 <timeless> [ thanks to timeless for scribing ]
14:45:15 <timeless> [ There is no process call next week due to a conflict with QQ ]
14:45:16 <timeless> trackbot, end meeting
14:45:16 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:45:16 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, SteveZ, [IPcaller], chaals, timeless
14:45:19 <Zakim> -chaals
14:45:22 <Zakim> -dsinger
14:45:23 <chaals> s/QQ/AB meeting
14:45:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:45:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
14:45:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:45:25 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:45:26 <Zakim> -SteveZ