16:13:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
16:13:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-irc
16:13:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:13:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
16:14:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:14:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:14:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
16:14:01 <trackbot> Date: 29 October 2014
16:14:05 <shinwoo> shinwoo has joined #w3process
16:14:12 <timeless> zakim, call sierra
16:14:12 <Zakim> sorry, timeless, I don't know what conference this is
16:14:43 <timeless> meeting: W3C Process 2015 - What is new; What should be new
16:14:59 <timeless> scribe: timeless
16:15:06 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:15:09 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:15:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:15:22 <joanie> joanie has joined #w3process
16:15:23 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:15:32 <burn> burn has joined #w3process
16:15:33 <timeless> Chair: szilles
16:15:47 <timeless> s/szilles/SteveZ/
16:15:50 <mdjp> mdjp has joined #w3process
16:15:57 <timeless> SteveZ: this is the session on updating the w3c process
16:16:06 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
16:16:09 <timeless> SteveZ: Steve Zilles, Chair of the Process Document Task Force
16:16:19 <timeless> ... we normally operate in email public-w3process@w3.org
16:16:21 <timeless> ... we have a tracker
16:16:34 <timeless> ... all is available in the Revising the W3 Process CG web page
16:16:37 <timeless> ... I have slides
16:17:15 <timeless> [ Slide: Process 2015 and 2016 Status ]
16:17:31 <timeless> SteveZ: what we're doing, and to gather concerns / comments about the process
16:17:35 <timeless> [ Slide: Status ]
16:17:39 <timeless> SteveZ: the AB who owns the Process
16:17:46 <timeless> ... said in June
16:17:53 <timeless> ... that we want to work in the open
16:17:57 <timeless> ... in the Process CG
16:18:08 <timeless> ... we put out Process 2014 which is largely an update to Chapter 7
16:18:19 <timeless> ... - how a WG proceeds on a document to NOTE / REC
16:18:22 <timeless> ... that got approved
16:18:34 <timeless> ... in the process of doing that, we left out structural changes that we knew we wanted to make
16:18:42 <timeless> ... the structural changes mixing w/ the content changes
16:18:51 <timeless> ... seemed like it would cause more confusion than it would help
16:19:00 <timeless> ... so we split that into 2015 for the simpler bits
16:19:08 <timeless> s/simpler/structural/
16:19:14 <timeless> ... and 2016 for the more substantive bits
16:19:30 <timeless> ... Structural was designed to be non-substantive, but we discovered it isn't always like that
16:19:33 <timeless> [ Slide: Overall Plan ]
16:19:40 <timeless> [ Slide: Process 2015 Status ]
16:19:53 <timeless> SteveZ: we have a draft that removed section 5 (Activities)
16:20:09 <timeless> ... Activities were originally created with the idea that the AC would approve the Activity
16:20:17 <timeless> ... and the Activity would create WGs in that context
16:20:21 <timeless> ... but the AC didn't like that
16:20:41 <taku> taku has joined #w3process
16:20:42 <timeless> ... the Activity became mostly redundant because WGs needed to have the information
16:20:47 <timeless> ... there were 2 exceptions
16:20:56 <timeless> ... one was creating an Activity relating to IP concerns
16:21:14 <timeless> issue-121?
16:21:14 <trackbot> issue-121 -- Intellectual property information.in charters -- pending review
16:21:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121
16:21:34 <timeless> SteveZ: we've transferred that requirement to Chapter 6
16:21:43 <timeless> ... the second thing was
16:21:49 <timeless> ... at every AC meeting (twice a year)
16:21:55 <timeless> ... there was to be an update on Activities
16:22:02 <timeless> issue-115?
16:22:02 <trackbot> issue-115 -- Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months -- pending review
16:22:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115
16:22:14 <timeless> SteveZ: that was changed to be an update on groups, identifying closure of groups
16:22:19 <timeless> ... etc.
16:22:28 <timeless> ... to keep AC aware of what's going on
16:22:40 <timeless> ... with those two changes, we've removed Chapter 5
16:22:47 <timeless> ... we've also removed 6.2.1.7 Good Standing
16:23:02 <timeless> ... that concept was based on the idea that groups would have a lot of votes
16:23:20 <timeless> ... and the idea was to only allow people who regularly attend meetings to vote
16:23:29 <timeless> ... but over time, WGs generally worked on consensus
16:23:38 <timeless> ... taking straw votes
16:23:43 <mchampion_> mchampion_ has joined #w3process
16:23:49 <timeless> ... Good Standing probably hasn't been used for 5 or even more years
16:24:00 <timeless> ... dropping this simplifies the Process, and simplifies the chair's jobs
16:24:22 <timeless> ... it was observed that if a group wanted to establish such a rule, they could always do it, by putting it in their Charter
16:24:26 <timeless> ... and AC would approve/not
16:24:36 <timeless> ... lastly, removing 6.2.7 Heartbeat
16:24:44 <timeless> ... there's a more reasonable requirement in Chapter 7
16:24:58 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:24:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:25:12 <timeless> present+ David_Baron
16:25:18 <timeless> present+ Steve_Faulkner
16:25:23 <timeless> present+ Josh_Soref
16:25:27 <timeless> present+ Steve_Zilles
16:25:53 <timeless> SteveZ: in Chapter 7
16:25:59 <timeless> ... 7.2.1
16:27:07 <timeless> present+ Jingwang_Oi
16:27:14 <timeless> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
16:27:48 <timeless> s/7.2.1/7.3.2 Revising Public Working Drafts/
16:28:10 <timeless> SteveZ: it's saying that if something is being mothballed
16:28:16 <timeless> ... "no further work is being done"
16:28:24 <timeless> ... the Team has the obligation to do that if the WG isn't standing
16:28:38 <timeless> ... it's been observed that there are a significant number of documents on /TR/ that are incomplete
16:28:50 <timeless> ... with no expectation that they will progress
16:29:07 <timeless> [ Slide: Process 2015 Status - continued ]
16:29:18 <timeless> SteveZ: direct-chairman to chairman contact
16:29:32 <timeless> ... should a collection of WGs want to create a coordination-Group
16:29:40 <timeless> ... there's already enough flexibility to do it
16:29:47 <timeless> ... process is simpler if you don't call out these things
16:29:54 <timeless> ... new groups aren't typically creating coordination-Groups
16:30:04 <timeless> ... yesterday morning in the Chair's breakfast
16:30:15 <timeless> ... there was a discussion for a mechanism for identifying when issues arise
16:30:20 <timeless> ... on what other things are doing
16:30:26 <timeless> ... a suggestion was a Twitter channel
16:30:39 <timeless> present+ Daniel_Burnett
16:31:02 <timeless> present+ Richard_Ishida
16:31:09 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
16:31:16 <timeless> ... we've been criticized that a lot of things on /TR/ are way too static
16:31:24 <timeless> ... out of date wrt general knowledge about a spec
16:31:35 <timeless> ... the idea is not to go to continuous specifications
16:31:45 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:31:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html chaals
16:31:47 <timeless> ... but make /TR/ more reflective in the actual state of things
16:32:03 <timeless> present+ Chaals_Nevile
16:32:15 <timeless> ... one proposal is that Errata be updated no less frequently than Quarterly
16:32:25 <timeless> ... it also says that Errata is specified to be on a separate page
16:32:37 <timeless> ... and it's been pointed out by editors and users, that this isn't an effective way to go
16:32:49 <timeless> ... I can show you an out of date example of what i was trying to do
16:32:53 <timeless> ... here I have a document w/ a proposal
16:33:04 <timeless> ... and in this version, I was going to mark a section w/ Errata in yellow
16:33:13 <timeless> [ errata-markup-2.html ]
16:33:27 <timeless> SteveZ: it's been suggested that a more effective way to go
16:33:37 <timeless> ... was to print the replacement text w/ a warning that it's a replacement
16:33:44 <nigel> nigel: +1
16:33:51 <timeless> richard: that's interesting, but when I print the document for review
16:33:57 <timeless> ... you won't get the interactivity
16:34:03 <timeless> SteveZ: you'd get the background
16:34:12 <timeless> chaals: people print in black-and-white
16:34:23 <timeless> ... I have an alternative, that you use an Editor's Draft
16:34:35 <timeless> ... and the ED's will have Errata marked out/folded in
16:34:38 <timeless> ... that seems easier
16:34:42 <timeless> ... all around
16:34:55 <timeless> ... I think the practice is becoming that the EDs are referred from all docs all the time
16:35:04 <timeless> ... it used to be that no /TR/ spec mentioned ED
16:35:13 <timeless> ... you could point to Errata by pointing to the ED
16:35:32 <timeless> florian: having RECs point to the scratch place
16:35:35 <timeless> ... looks imbalanced
16:35:49 <timeless> nigel: chaals 's suggestion sounds pretty identical to "Living Standard"
16:35:59 <timeless> chaals: "I think Living Standards are an Oxymoron"
16:36:05 <timeless> ... [ censored ]
16:36:12 <timeless> ... standards are living in a sense, they change over time
16:36:21 <timeless> ... i believe it's important to have a stable referenced thing
16:36:24 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
16:36:29 <nigel> nigel: +1
16:36:30 <timeless> ... i work with people who have that as a requirement all the time
16:36:36 <timeless> ... nothing wrong w/ having "here is the draft"
16:36:50 <timeless> ... you have 4 errata, you'll have an ED with a note about that
16:36:57 <timeless> ... if you have 60, you should have someone working on the draft
16:37:03 <timeless> richard: I can see chaals 's logic
16:37:09 <timeless> ... and have people mostly looking at ED
16:37:12 <timeless> ... concerns
16:37:21 <timeless> ... you'd have to mark Errata in ED as being Errata
16:37:33 <timeless> ... so people would know that there's been a change, a serious change relative to /TR/
16:37:50 <timeless> ... people would look at the /TR/ without thinking there are Errata called out in the ED
16:38:16 <timeless> ... it would be important to call out existence of Errata in /TR/ so people know to look out for ED
16:38:26 <timeless> SteveZ: worth looking into, but not necessary to solve today
16:38:35 <timeless> ... it doesn't have to be done the same way in every group
16:38:47 <timeless> burn: if we allow for different ways, that's fine
16:38:59 <timeless> ... once we begin to mandate, I and others will have strong opinions
16:39:11 <timeless> nigel: to previous slide
16:39:24 <timeless> ... you mentioned "should be updated not less frequently than quarterly"
16:39:30 <timeless> ... it took me time to figure out what it meant
16:39:35 <timeless> ... there might be nothing wrong in a spec
16:39:44 <timeless> SteveZ: you need to at least have considered the comments that come in
16:39:52 <timeless> ... if there's nothing wrong, then it is up-to-date
16:40:01 <timeless> florian: do you need to put in "nothing has changed"?
16:40:03 <timeless> SteveZ: no
16:40:09 <timeless> ... just that
16:40:21 <timeless> ... it's aimed to not be a burden, but to get people to have a mental shift
16:40:29 <timeless> ... updating documents with Errata is part of what you do
16:40:47 <hiso> hiso has joined #w3process
16:40:47 <timeless> richard: i understand the requirement to be that you update the Errata where they happen to be
16:40:49 <timeless> ... not in /TR/
16:41:01 <timeless> ... but real Errata are things that aren't stated correctly in /TR/
16:41:10 <forty4> forty4 has joined #w3process
16:41:23 <timeless> ... but shouldn't there be a requirement not that we update the Errata, but that we insert into /TR/
16:41:39 <timeless> SteveZ: my example uses green color with CSS and using <ins>
16:41:59 <timeless> joanie: can you get the people to your right to present+
16:42:02 <timeless> s/joanie: can you get the people to your right to present+//
16:42:15 <timeless> chaals: Process 2016; there's a fairly serious shift we need to make,
16:42:21 <timeless> ... about versioning specs
16:42:30 <timeless> ... the process assumes "you write a spec, and go away, and disappear"
16:42:44 <timeless> ... and yet errata will be magically updated, even though you disappeared
16:42:49 <timeless> ... nothing happens like that
16:43:01 <timeless> ... in reality, we make specs, and keep evolving them until the specs are obsolete
16:43:11 <timeless> ... the Process and the Patent Policy are really unclear
16:43:24 <timeless> ... and dealing with that will make it clearer how we update things on /TR/
16:43:30 <timeless> ... if you go beyond typographical errors
16:43:39 <timeless> ... at any level, you start running into the IPR policy
16:43:46 <timeless> ... Patents turn on "well we said you have a region"
16:43:52 <timeless> ... of course we meant a square region
16:44:03 <timeless> ... you say square region, and there's a patent on it being square/not being square
16:44:18 <timeless> ... seemingly obvious and trivial changes need to be approached with a great deal of care
16:44:29 <timeless> richard: wouldn't that apply even if you put an Errata in a different place?
16:44:39 <timeless> chaals: for the people who really care about the patent stuff
16:44:43 <timeless> ... you don't want to confuse them
16:44:59 <timeless> ... ultimately Errata need to be addressed
16:45:13 <timeless> SteveZ: to make Errata normative, you need to do an AC to trigger the Patent review
16:45:23 <timeless> chaals: i'm hoping in Process 2016
16:45:29 <timeless> ... and i'm skeptical about Process 2015
16:45:43 <timeless> ... that (in 2016), there will be significant changes
16:45:51 <timeless> burn: on previous slide
16:45:58 <timeless> [ Process 2015 Status - continued ]
16:46:14 <timeless> burn: there's now a heartbeat requirement for RECs?
16:46:42 <timeless> ... or advice to working groups
16:46:43 <timeless> ... or advice to working groups
16:46:43 <timeless> ... that no Errata approved by the group should remain unreflected in the document for > 3 months
16:46:49 <timeless> s//... or advice to working groups/
16:46:54 <timeless> SteveZ: it's not you must pubhs
16:46:58 <timeless> s/pubhs/publish/
16:46:59 <nigel> nigel: +1 to not leaving errata unreflected for too long
16:47:02 <timeless> ... it's you must consider
16:47:18 <timeless> burn: we have only 2 people in our WG
16:47:20 <timeless> ... we have others who are members, but don't participate
16:47:24 <timeless> ... I don't want to touch a document
16:47:27 <timeless> ... it's pretty much done
16:47:38 <timeless> ... clarifications often turn out to be not clarifications in everyone's minds
16:47:41 <timeless> ... but actual changes
16:47:46 <timeless> ... with a specification that is actually done
16:47:49 <timeless> ... it's fine the way it is
16:48:03 <timeless> present+ Shiwoo_Kang
16:48:08 <timeless> present+ Yoo_Jiwoong
16:48:21 <timeless> SteveZ: the SHOULD is appropriate here
16:48:29 <timeless> ... you "can not do it if you have a good reason"
16:48:34 <timeless> ... you cited a good reason
16:48:39 <timeless> ... it's trying to emphasize thinking about it
16:48:49 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:48:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:48:55 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
16:49:06 <timeless> chaals: another change is "clarifying what a decision is"
16:49:18 <timeless> ... there's lots of verbage about consensus, how you get there, etc.
16:49:22 <timeless> ... a lot of it is [ censored ]
16:49:27 <timeless> ... my current thinking is to rewrite it
16:49:49 <timeless> ... saying "your goal is to achieve consensus, unless you have administrative decision that 'we just need a decision'"
16:50:00 <timeless> ... there should be a clear "when a chair publishes a statement that we've made a decision"
16:50:13 <timeless> ... there's "when does a group publish", a group makes a decision, what does that mean
16:50:21 <timeless> ... and it isn't clear what does a person do to object
16:50:26 <timeless> ... that's kind of up in the air
16:50:37 <timeless> ... i'd like to take that chapter and crunch it into two paragaphs
16:50:51 <timeless> nigel: to me, the simplest way is to require that charters state a decision policy
16:50:56 <timeless> chaals: charters could state that
16:51:11 <timeless> ... but i'd like a flexible model, but clear enough, that you walk into a WG and understand how decisions will be made
16:51:15 <timeless> ... i'm not sure where the boundary is
16:51:40 <timeless> ... but it's important that an AC Member understands that a WG decision means "consensus", or "vote", or "arbitrary decision"
16:51:48 <timeless> ... and the Charter could say that
16:51:51 <timeless> ... i don't know
16:52:16 <timeless> florian: in CSS,
16:52:35 <timeless> ... we had some attrition on decisions
16:52:44 <timeless> present+ Florian_Vioal
16:52:54 <timeless> dbaron: the thing that worries me about Decisions, more than the formality
16:53:01 <timeless> ... is the informal aspects of how we make them
16:53:07 <timeless> ... i'm not sure how Process can help
16:53:11 <timeless> ... in CSS, we've had cases where
16:53:17 <timeless> ... there's a desire to reach Consensus
16:53:31 <timeless> ... but there's no desire to make sure that people have thought about the issue
16:53:43 <timeless> florian: that's what Good Standing was for
16:54:04 <timeless> dbaron: there was an example Monday morning in CSS
16:54:04 <timeless> ... the editors weren't present
16:54:08 <timeless> ... and then the editors showed up
16:54:12 <timeless> ... and asked what happened
16:54:23 <timeless> ... I want us to find a way to actually make good decisions
16:54:27 <timeless> burn: decision making
16:54:31 <timeless> ... one thing I found very confusing
16:54:36 <timeless> ... when I started working in W3C
16:54:42 <timeless> ... was the lack of a clear decision making process
16:54:50 <timeless> ... one of the things I now like about W3C
16:54:57 <timeless> ... is that the Group decides how to make decisions
16:55:02 <timeless> ... with a good Chair
16:55:08 <timeless> ... it allows you to adjust for Cultural issues
16:55:15 <timeless> ... it comes down to a Chair making a decision
16:55:21 <timeless> ... I like decisions by attrition
16:55:37 <timeless> ... when some people say "oh, i don't care"
16:55:37 <timeless> ... sometimes that's how decisions have to be made
16:55:51 <timeless> ... you have to guard against key-stakeholders not being present
16:55:52 <timeless> ... if that's happening
16:56:35 <timeless> timeless: I have a problem as a scribe
16:56:41 <timeless> ... where i've scribed the same problem
16:56:43 <timeless> ... year on year
16:56:48 <timeless> ... i wish people would have read
16:56:57 <timeless> ... it's related to Good Standing
16:57:03 <timeless> nigel: we just write "what to do"
16:57:10 <timeless> ... we don't explain "why we decided to do it"
16:57:15 <timeless> ... i don't have a proposal to do that
16:57:22 <timeless> ... but recording the reasoning behind a particular thing
16:57:25 <timeless> ... it's helpful for the reader
16:57:30 <timeless> ... and helpful to the people updating
16:57:34 <chaals> q+ to note "rationale" in a decision is useful, and listing the decisions is a good practice, so you can refer there. Institutional memory and all that.
16:57:35 <timeless> ... and it's helpful to the scribing
16:57:47 <timeless> dbaron: Decisions by attrition often being good
16:57:52 <timeless> ... i'm a little skeptical about that
16:58:07 <timeless> ... decisions by attrition are part of the reason most of the browser vendors aren't participating in the HTML WG
16:58:18 <timeless> ... the browser vendors were attrittioned out
16:58:21 <chaals> ack me
16:58:21 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to note "rationale" in a decision is useful, and listing the decisions is a good practice, so you can refer there. Institutional memory and all that.
16:58:25 <timeless> burn: i didn't say all
16:58:31 <timeless> SteveZ: he made the point that key stakeholders
16:58:51 <timeless> chaals: institutional memory makes WGs able to work better than coming along and work better
16:59:01 <timeless> ... sometimes you might want to come along 4 years ago and change a decision
16:59:15 <timeless> ... there needs to be flexibility for a group to figure out when a group wants to toss stuff around
16:59:18 <timeless> ... and a way to ask "is there a decision"
16:59:26 <timeless> ... decision might be "we do not have a position one way or the other"
16:59:33 <timeless> ... but it's unhelpful to know "what a decision is"
16:59:40 <timeless> ... and there's no way to argue
16:59:46 <timeless> ... we don't always have good chairs
16:59:59 <timeless> ... and don't always have good WG function
17:00:06 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:00:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
17:00:12 <timeless> [ Process 2015 Status ]
17:00:23 <timeless> richard: we're not talking about Activities going away
17:00:36 <timeless> SteveZ: "Activities" as a Process step, they go away
17:00:41 <timeless> ... no step presented to AC
17:00:58 <timeless> SteveZ: Team is left with option of creating mechanisms to help present the work of the consortium
17:01:35 <joanie> q+ To ask how and where she can participate in the discussion of ways to address issues of history and rationale for spec items
17:01:59 <timeless> SteveZ: to deal with substantive issues
17:02:12 <timeless> ... i'm beginning to think Decision Process is substantive, probably not in 2015
17:02:24 <timeless> ... goal is to get stable version of 2015 and begin reviewing/prioritizing issues in 2016
17:02:27 <timeless> ... issues are in tracker
17:02:45 <chaals1> chaals1 has joined #w3process
17:02:58 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #w3process
17:03:21 <chaals1> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:03:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html chaals1
17:03:29 <hjlee> hjlee has joined #w3process
17:04:08 <timeless> SteveZ: group edited documents ok?
17:04:12 <timeless> issue-138?
17:04:12 <trackbot> issue-138 -- Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok? -- open
17:04:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138
17:04:25 <chaals1> [Yes, anyone or everyone in the WG can be appointed editor]
17:04:29 <timeless> SteveZ: earlier discussion about ED/WG Draft
17:04:46 <timeless> ... new technologies since when this Process was originally written
17:04:50 <timeless> ... need to grow the process
17:05:04 <timeless> present+ Jacob_Goldstein
17:05:13 <timeless> richard: would you have no editor named in the field?
17:05:16 <timeless> SteveZ: correct
17:05:20 <timeless> ... you have groups like that
17:05:47 <timeless> ... another in thing i didn't mention
17:05:55 <Josh_Soref> -> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/ W3 Process Tracker
17:06:06 <timeless> SteveZ: another thing is role of Team
17:06:15 <timeless> ... a random set of privileges are listed under Director
17:06:22 <timeless> ... the rest are scattered in the document
17:06:43 <timeless> ... so in good style, we'll probably remove the director list and leave things where they apply in the document
17:06:45 <timeless> [ Schedule ]
17:07:12 <timeless> SteveZ: goal to have a draft of Process 2015 reviewed in Feb/Mar at AB Meeting
17:07:20 <timeless> ... document for AC Review in April
17:07:32 <timeless> ... to be open at May 9 AC Meeting in ...
17:07:34 <timeless> dbaron: Paris
17:07:45 <timeless> SteveZ: last year we had another session so people could input comments
17:07:46 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
17:07:56 <dbaron> May 5-7, Paris
17:07:57 <timeless> ... have AC Review close and results announce in May/June timeframe
17:08:04 <timeless> s/9 AC/AC/
17:08:09 <timeless> [ Questions ]
17:08:14 <timeless> q?
17:08:17 <timeless> ack joanie
17:08:17 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask how and where she can participate in the discussion of ways to address issues of history and rationale for spec items
17:08:39 <timeless> joanie: "is the answer in the minutes", "is the answer in the ML"
17:08:46 <timeless> ... i don't have a lot of cycles, but I have ideas
17:08:49 <nigel> q+ to raise issue of "evidence of implementation"
17:08:56 <timeless> ... i'm raising my hand to volunteer on that problem
17:09:04 <nigel> q+ to raise issue of "do CRs have to have exit criteria?"
17:09:10 <timeless> SteveZ: Process ML public-w3process@w3.org
17:09:15 <timeless> ... a good place where discussions go on
17:09:20 <timeless> ... unless someone suggests a better place
17:09:30 <timeless> ... the issue of the topic, of what is a decision, and how is it recorded
17:09:33 <timeless> ... is relevant to that ML
17:09:43 <timeless> ... we try to identify emails
17:09:49 <timeless> ... I'll check to make sure there's an issue
17:09:57 <timeless> ... and try to make sure emails identify the issue
17:10:00 <timeless> q?
17:10:02 <timeless> ack nigel
17:10:02 <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to raise issue of "evidence of implementation" and to raise issue of "do CRs have to have exit criteria?"
17:10:17 <timeless> nigel: you mentioned to offer a chance to raise issues
17:10:26 <timeless> ... how clear is the section on "evidence of implementation"
17:10:36 <timeless> ... to exit CR, you have to demonstrate implementation
17:10:48 <timeless> ... we had an argument between editor and chair
17:10:59 <timeless> ... i'm on the side that we have to write down
17:11:06 <timeless> ... and staff backs us up
17:11:10 <timeless> ... that could be clarified
17:11:19 <timeless> SteveZ: you have to file a report to get out of PR
17:11:31 <timeless> nigel: do you have to be up front what your criteria are?
17:11:40 <timeless> SteveZ: you have to write it down
17:11:45 <timeless> nigel: it's ambiguous
17:11:52 <timeless> ... there's one document at PR without exit criteria
17:11:55 <timeless> SteveZ: i accept the point
17:12:10 <timeless> ... much like wide-review, we may need clarification in implementation consideration
17:12:17 <timeless> nigel: on wide-review
17:12:27 <timeless> ... there's a set of questions from the Director might ask
17:12:36 <timeless> ... but there's no indication about what the expected answer us
17:12:38 <timeless> s/us/is/
17:12:43 <timeless> SteveZ: the intent was to be unclear
17:12:48 <timeless> nigel: it was successful
17:12:58 <timeless> SteveZ: we felt that we didn't want people to checklist things
17:13:05 <timeless> ... we were trying to convey the things to think about
17:13:11 <timeless> ... they don't need to say yes to everything
17:13:17 <timeless> ... but to build a body of evidence
17:13:22 <timeless> ... we didn't say you have to do all of them
17:13:29 <timeless> ... you might say how many do i have to do
17:13:30 <timeless> nigel: yeah
17:13:42 <timeless> ... in that section, it would be really helpful to state the wider goal
17:13:58 <timeless> burn: the rationale for that decision being vague should be embedded
17:14:08 <timeless> ... citing the earlier discussion
17:14:16 <timeless> SteveZ: plugging the next session on Wide Review
17:14:24 <timeless> ... it's break time
17:14:36 <timeless> richard: thanks SteveZ
17:14:42 <timeless> SteveZ: thank you everyone, i appreciate the comments
17:14:47 <timeless> ... and thanks to timeless for scribing
17:14:51 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:14:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
17:14:55 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
17:14:56 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:14:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html timeless
17:29:40 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has left #w3process
17:40:00 <nigel> nigel has joined #w3process
17:43:48 <nigel_> nigel_ has joined #w3process
17:44:27 <joanie> joanie has left #w3process
17:58:06 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
17:58:27 <nigel> action: SteveZ Open an issue to add liaisons to what's considered in the Wide Review paragraph 7.2.3.1
17:58:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Open an issue to add liaisons to what's considered in the wide review paragraph 7.2.3.1 [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-05].
18:01:44 <myakura_> myakura_ has joined #w3process
19:11:15 <nigel> Present+ nigel
19:11:21 <nigel> rrsagent, generate minute
19:11:21 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'generate minute', nigel.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:11:41 <nigel> s/rrsagent, generate minute/
19:12:01 <nigel> nigel has joined #w3process
19:12:08 <nigel> Present+ nigel
19:12:12 <nigel> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:12:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-w3process-minutes.html nigel
19:39:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
19:58:52 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
20:01:45 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
20:20:06 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
20:43:30 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
20:45:35 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
21:03:07 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
22:03:13 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
22:49:14 <myakura> myakura has joined #w3process
23:48:20 <florian> florian has joined #w3process
23:51:49 <florian1> florian1 has joined #w3process