See also: IRC log
close action-33
<trackbot> Closed action-33.
<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2014
<timeless> action-33
<trackbot> action-33 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Propose text to update 6.2.6 to deal with issue 121 -- due 2014-09-02 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/33
<jeff_> [sounds GTM]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0120.html thread for ISSUE-115
<SteveZ> and I sent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0170.html
<scribe> Scribe: chaals
<SteveZ> phone dropped
CMN: The apparent resolution was to change "W3C should inform the AC about the status of Activities" to "…of activities (including but not limited to Working and Interest Groups)"
SteveZ: Dave Singer suggested what chaals just repeated
<SteveZ> Resolved: "activity (including but not limited to the work of groups)"
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-115 by changing "Activity" to "activity (including but not limited to the work of groups)" in 2.1.3.2
<jeff_> issue-121?
<trackbot> issue-121 -- Intellectual property information.in charters -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0121.html proposal for the issue
CMN: Proposal is to move the bullet requiring W3C inform the AC about the IPR around an area of work, e.g. if they have reason to believe it will be hard to get RF commitments
JJ: Wasn't there a concern expressed that this makes the Team do more work.
CMN: THe concern was whether this would oblige the Team to share information given in confidence, and my understanding is the answer is *NO*.
SZ: MikeC did express the concern
Jeff said. You pointed out that there is a requirement to do
this already.
... propose to resolve as chaals proposes
JJ: Idea is to make changes that get consensus. Rather than waiting for an objection I would prefer the chair to take an action to determine if there is likely to be an outstanding objection.
SZ: Propose to send something to AC forum saying we resolved this as proposed - does anyone have a problem
CMN: We have now dealt with all of Activiites. I will propose that we send a new draft to the AC as an interim draft, for their review of removing Activities.
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-121 by moving the bullet as proposed by chaals
Steve: Plan is to produce a draft for AC review.
MikeC: sounds good
JJ: Suggest you copy w3process with your review draft
SZ: and chairs
SZ: This is irrelevant to process
MC: And a bad idea?
<Jay> suddenly the phone system down, I will reconnect by other method.
MC: Haven't heard any support for this proposal
SZ: Don't want to reopen the discussion
RESOLUTION: closed as not applicable to the Process, and nobody thinks it is a good idea
CMN: Already asked for support. Shouldbe closed as "nobody thinks it is a good idea"
SZ: SUggestion is that we remove good standing.
CMN: You were the last person saying "I am not suggesting we remove it", so if you have shifted position I think we have a consensus.
<SteveZ> RESOLUTION: Remove Good Standing from the Process
SZ: And we have an exchange showing that we have flexibility for a charter to use provisions like this if people decide it is necessary
SZ: This should be closed as "completed"
issue-64?
<trackbot> issue-64 -- Chapter 7: add a link to an errata page -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/64
CMN: This is done. There are links to the tracker, and editor's drafts.
RESOLUTION: close issue-64
close issue-64
<trackbot> Closed issue-64.
issue-97
<trackbot> issue-97 -- Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really accurate and representative? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97
SZ: Believe chaals suggested this is a rathole, and there is no benefit from "fixing" it
DG: I disagree that it is not worth the cost. People want to be on the Board because they believe it is a board with some power - and they use being there for their own career advancement.
… unfortunate that it is named board, although it is difficult to change.
MC: Do you have an alternate suggestion?
DG: The AB should be called the Advisory Committee, the AC should be called the membership. It is difficult to change now unfortunately. I dream it could be done in the future.
… having the word "Board" is misleading, not doing things right.
CMN: I agree with Daniel that there are some unfortunate consequences of having used the term Board, although I don't think the overall cost is actually that high. ANd I think changing the names is not a high-priority activity but would be high cost.
JJ: For Process2015 the objective is to make the changes that don't imply a lot of debate, so we can get there quickly. I propose we postpone this issue, to at least process2016
Jay: Understand the feeling of Daniel. But agree that it is not something we should change now.
DG: Good standing took 15 years to remove. We are labeled as slow and incapable of doing things fast. This is a minor issue, changing a word.
… agree it is not easy to do because there is a cost in terms of implementation, but that there could be resistance from the people. I don't objection to any possible decision, but don't understand why this is not a high priority.
… perception is everything. If people perceive that teh Advisory Board is a board we have a perception problem. But think it is a priority and low cost.
CMN: The cost is in bikeshedding, and in people remembering what the new things are called...
DG: *cough*
CMN: I suggest we keep it open, and can discuss on email, but don't think we should try to solve it in a meeting.
<SteveZ_> CMN this will lead to a bikeshedding discussion which will take a long time and the cost in terms of changes in people's heads trying to track the changes may be large
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-97 remains open, expected to be resolved for Process2016
<SteveZ_> RESOLUTION: Keep Issue-97 Open but discuss it in the Process2016 discusion
SZ: When do you expect a draft for AC review?
CMN: today
... Should I include the removal of Good Standing in the draft
for review?
... Don't think we should be concerned at exactly matching the
process used for Rec-Track
... Are there any objections to me publishing the draft for
wider review?
RESOLUTION: Chaals to publish the draft for wider review.
SZ: Does anyone object to removing good standing for that draft.
DG: support doing so.
<SteveZ_> RESOLUTION: Publish a Draft of Process2015 that has both Activities and Good Standing reomoved.
CMN: Would like to open the issue of removing coordination groups.
JJ: Would like to circulate this idea around the team, before we try to reach resolution.
SZ: Chaals can you send a message proposing to open that issue?
<glazou> +1 on chaals’ suggestion
<SteveZ_> RSSAgent, make minutes
<scribe> ACTION: chaals to open issue on removing coordination groups [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/30-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Open issue on removing coordination groups [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-10-07].
<Jay> TQ
[Adjourned]
<timeless> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/scribe: timeless// Succeeded: s/including/including but not limited to/ Succeeded: s/aack je// Succeeded: s/[scribe missed]/propose to resolve as chaals proposes/ Succeeded: s/w3process/w3process with your review draft/ Succeeded: s/the Process/the Process, and nobody thinks it is a good idea/ Succeeded: s/to the collection of W3C document/in people's heads trying to track the changes/ Succeeded: s/WOuld/Would/ Succeeded: s/propsing/proposing/ Succeeded: s/trackbot, start meeting// Succeeded: s/+33.1.34.51.aaaa, [IPcaller], // Found Scribe: chaals Inferring ScribeNick: chaals Default Present: glazou, Jay, SteveZ, timeless, Jeff, chaals, Mike_Champion Present: glazou Jay SteveZ timeless Jeff chaals Mike_Champion Found Date: 30 Sep 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/30-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: chaals WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]