Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 11 Nov 2014

<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2014

<inserted> scribe: jeff

Agenda

1. Review Open Action Items

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open

2. Discuss Meeting time

This Telcon now begins at Midnight in Japan and at 1AM in Australia. Possible other time include:

3. Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C

Proposed replacement text for section 7.7.1 was sent:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html

and Proposal and associated discussion thread begins at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0139.html

Charles has an ACTION: Propose a resolution for issue 141 to propose an alternative replacement text.

4. Issue-129 Remove Coordination Groups

5. Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

The Document Review wiki has been edited to resolve concerns expressed so efforts to create an RfC announcement list should proceed. Some editing of the text of the Wide Review section, to indicate the desired purposes of the changes to Wide Review, is still needed.

http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html

See thread announcing the results of the CfC:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0157.html

6. Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

We seem to be reaching consensus on not listing rights and responsibilities of the Director in 2.2. We have not, however, reached consensus on whether the Process Document should have or point to a definition of the W3C. There are two points that have been raised: (a) The legal status of the W3C does not need to be discussed in the Process and (b) the term “W3C” is used in the Process Document and should have a definition within that document, but, perhaps,

it a separate section rather than part of section 2.2.

And if time is available:

7. Issue-138: Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok?

8. Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really accurate and representative?

9. Any other business

<timeless> scribe: timeless

Review Open Action Items

SteveZ: i'll skip action items, because chaals isn't on

Discuss Meeting time

SteveZ: the agenda had two other times
... we don't have Jay (it's midnight for him)
... the other times that seem to make sense are 6AM Japan (+1 day)
... 1pm on West Coast, 4pm on East Coast, 10pm in Central Europe
... or 7AM Japan ... which pushes it to 11pm in Central Europe
... we don't have chaals

timeless:

jeff: can we do this via Email?

michael: what about rotating?

SteveZ: that gets really confusing

michael: it's confusing, but it shares the pain
... rather than just saying "ok, well you people in East Asia, get used to it"

SteveZ: i'll resend this out

timeless: as a doodle poll?

SteveZ: i should do that

jeff: one other complexity
... when i look at the times for the US, 4/5 or 10
... it depends on the day of the week
... each of us have other standing meetings/standing conflicts
... maybe do the poll 5 days, 3 times = 15 times
... to find out which works

SteveZ: ok

Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C

SteveZ: chaals was going to give an alternative update

<chaals> [chaals thinks rotating is a reasonable option]

SteveZ: to the text i proposed
... i haven't seen that text
... it's getting late to send something out to PSIG for comment

<jeff> +1 to sending Steve's proposed text to PSIG for comments

SteveZ: i'd like to send the text I proposed to PSIG as "what we have at the moment", to get comments on

<chaals> [I have not completed either of my action items. Assuming my computer lasts the week - which is not an assumption I would rely on - I will aim to complete them by tomorrow night]

SteveZ: we can wait another week and discuss it next week

jeff: i don't object to a chair's decision to wait another week
... PSIG analyzes very deliberately, i want to get this in Process-2015
... personal preference, is that we send SteveZ 's proposed text to PSIG for comments
... we'll run out of time
... PSIG review, AC review, ...

SteveZ: i was worried about that
... my thinking is the same as yours
... one week was reasonable

jeff: it was

SteveZ: i will send my text to PSIG
... if chaals is on PSIG, he can raise issues w/ it there

michael: I agree, moving forward, let it get word-smithed in PSIG

Issue-129 Remove Coordination Groups

SteveZ: jeff, you said Team had some concerns about this

jeff: yes, i discussed this w/ the Team
... i'd say many in the Team were supportive of removing Coord-Groups
... one person in the Team (Judy) strongly objected
... and her objection had substance
... that her Coord-Group is extremely useful
... my personal opinion is they aren't creating harm,
... they're very useful
... i'd suggest people advocating removing them work w/ Judy
... to identify something that works for WAI
... address her concerns
... and once that's successful, bring it back to Process

michael: which group is this?

jeff: i can get the details

michael: the argument isn't to take away things that are useful

<chaals> WAI Coord-Group

michael: it's to unburden the Process document
... the argument is for simplifying the process document
... as a way of getting wide review of documents

jeff: in her perspective, there's a lot of cross-review of documents that take place in this group
... perhaps to your point, it doesn't have to be part of the process
... we had a 15 min discussion at W3M
... people weren't able to convince Judy of that

<jeff> [many people talking at once]

timeless: could they change to be a Community Group?

SteveZ: chaals in his proposal said
... there's nothing preventing Charters from requiring people from participating in Ad-hoc groups
... the goal was to try to stop the requirement to create them
... where a number of groups felt they weren't useful

jeff: i don't recall the exact proposal
... if we stopped the requirement to create them
... but continue having Coord-Groups in the process
... it's possible that Judy would satisfied with that
... that's a worthy task to explore
... i'm guessing she might not be comfortable w/ it as a Community-Group
... in speaking to the General Public
... folks in the Accessibility Community feel the need to work in Member space
... that could be a problem w/ doing it as a Community Group

SteveZ: it could be an IG or a WG w/o Deliverables
... I think an Interest Group would be the most relevant
... and that can be in Member space

michael: I agree
... not to taking the tool away
... but to simplify the process

jeff: I don't mind taking that proposal to Judy

michael: doesn't Security have an IG

jeff: there is a Security
... i can take an Action to bring it back to Judy

SteveZ: please take the action given that chaals isn't on the phone call
... and you're likely to see Judy before he is
... to point out, we aren't interested in banning useful Groups
... but, a Member only IG should be able to serve the same purpose as a Coord-Group
... I could understand her wanting membership to be just Chairs
... I'll look to see if there's a simplification of Coord-Group based solely on Membership
... that might make it possible to keep around in a simpler form

jeff: fine with me

<SteveZ> ACTION: jeff to talk to Judy about using an existing group type, for example, member-only IG, to coordinate WAI activity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Talk to judy about using an existing group type, for example, member-only ig, to coordinate wai activity [on Jeff Jaffe - due 2014-11-18].

<SteveZ> ACTION: SteveZ to look at simplifying Coordination Groups to meet Judy's needs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-w3process-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Look at simplifying coordination groups to meet judy's needs [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-18].

Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

SteveZ: this one, there were two comments in the Breakout session at TPAC
... one from Nigel was, he would like a statement about the Intent for Wide-Review
... the Intent statement has two components
... "To Encourage Early Review"
... "To Encourage that things are Actually Reviewed, and not just announced"
... i'm willing to draft that kind of a statement
... if people are willing to accept that kind of statement back into the process document

jeff: I certainly would be interested in seeing a draft statement for review
... i totally get what Nigel is looking for
... we're creating this new ML for documents to go out
... i hear rumblings about
... "<g>", if we put our stuff on the ML, then we've achieved wide-review
... in general, the Team has concern
... when the Director is looking for Wide-Review
... he isn't looking for "I sent it out"
... he's looking for actual evidence of wide-review
... the text is there, but it's unclear,
... having text could help, i'd be interested in seeing such a statement

SteveZ: timeless, do you remember anything else people were asking about
... and I know there was a similar one for Implementation

http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html

timeless: there was a note about Liaisons

SteveZ: we have a Liaison page
... we should add that to the things that the Director is considering
... whether they were contacted

<SteveZ> ACTION: SteveZ to propose text for the intent of the Wide Review section and to add Liaisons to list of Director considerations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/11-w3process-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Propose text for the intent of the wide review section and to add liaisons to list of director considerations [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-18].

Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

SteveZ: i went through the minutes of last week on Team description
... i was unclear about what our resolution was
... it's possible, but i didn't see an action on chaals to draft text for that section

jeff: what's the conclusion, do we give chaals an action?

michael: does anyone besides chaals want to champion this?

<jeff> +1 to Mike.

SteveZ: there are pieces of it that would be good
... chaals sort of proposed text that listed roles/identified that they belonged to team
... i did a check, and with one exception, all of the director's roles are listed in the document
... i'll contact chaals so that by our next meeting, we'll have a clear answer on what's going to happen

michael: i don't object to this, i don't want to spend a lot of time on it

SteveZ: team section is simpler
... roles will be in document body, not team section
... some simple description of w3 will appear
... i think chaals said he was comfortable w/ it being in the team section

jeff: i think that's the last outstanding issue
... having director description in one place
... the only thing i think we were bouncing around on was Hosting agreements in / out
... if chaals is agreeable,

michael: is that somewhere that the process document can point to?

jeff: it's in the Process document

SteveZ: i think he was going to come up w/ language that would simpler

michael: chaals seems to have more work than he can do
... this doesn't seem as important
... [as other work]

timeless: if we gain a 5th host or lose a 4th host
... i don't want to have to revise the process document to handle that
... i'd rather we point to something
... even if that means someone has to make such a place

SteveZ: i'll talk to Ian about it

jeff: changing the Process document to add a Host
... was only a problem when we didn't change the document in 8 years
... we're on track to update the process document annually
... and we've only added a host once in 15 years

SteveZ: i can see text that says
... "the organization is established by contracts among the hosts, as of the date of this document, they are ..."

Issue-138: Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok?

SteveZ: this came up in an email discussion
... i had my doubts about this particular one
... there are some groups
... tantek is in those
... they don't exactly designate an editor
... there seem to be informal designation of lead people who can edit
... but the ED is open to changes by anyone
... so that we save the bottleneck of having to go to someone to get an issue in
... it means that w/ change-tracking these days
... the lead person modifying the document would typically catch changes
... see them, react to them, that way
... this works as long as the group is disciplined about how they edit things in
... and the leads are on top of things to fix things that need to be fixed
... whatever that means
... i think the process currently says that "the group selects an editor"
... but i don't think there's anything in the process that prevents other people from actually editing the document

michael: maybe we could take an action item to look for specific text in the Process document
... i agree there shouldn't be a mandate to have a single editor

SteveZ: i think the only thing that's there is that the WG is responsible for choosing the editor

michael: make that plural, and ....

SteveZ: i think it may be plural as it stands
... there was a complaint from one of the editors [at TPAC] that the WG was making Decisions without understanding why the text they were editing was there

jeff: i'm not sure that the statement is true
... the document is "Copyright W3C"
... i guess that no one has the right to modify it without permission
... so there's a question of who we give permission to modify the document

<SteveZ> from 7.2.1 Every Technical Report published as part of the Technical Report development process is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Group Chair. It is the responsibility of these editors to ensure that the decisions of the Group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the technical report. An editor must be a participant, as a Member representative, Team representative, or Invited Expert in the Group responsible for the document(s) th[CUT]

SteveZ: the key thing is the chair (can be plural)
... appoints 1 or more...

jeff: i'm not saying there can't be
... it just isn't automatic w/o permission of the Chair

<chaals> [right. As I proposed a while ago, the whole group can be editors if the chair appoints them]

SteveZ: i'm not sure we need to do anything for this case

timeless: is it sufficient to have an issue asking this

<SteveZ> 7.2.1 http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#general-requirements

timeless: and we resolve saying that no change is needed because this is already possible
... and then we just point to the resolved issue when people ask?

jeff: it wasn't clear to me what the question was
... "is it permitted to have group editing"
... or "should we open it up so that anyone can be the editor [by default]?"

SteveZ: i wouldn't agree with it either. if the group decides and the chair agrees, that would be fine
... this paragraph is the only place that defines restrictions on editors

jeff: it seems to me
... you want to close this item
... by saying "no, we don't want it to be editor free"

<chaals> [the question was "can everyone in the group be an editor of some deliverable of the group?". The answer is "yes"]

jeff: "it's whatever the Chair decides, one, two, or only bounded by the size of the group"

SteveZ: the current definition of the role of editor

<jeff> [actual the question was "Does the process require an editor or have other roadblocks]

SteveZ: allows a group to decide that all group members are editors
... and therefore the desired outcome is possible within the current process
... so no change is necessary

<jeff> [Our consensus seems to be, Yes, we desire to have a chair (or several or all) decided by the Chair]

timeless: +1

jeff: if we wanted to have anyone
... it's unfair to say anyone in a CG can be an editor of a document
... we're part of a large group where only a few turn up for calls

SteveZ: in the sense that Tantek meant, it would probably be ok
... the idea being to only put ISSUES into the document
... in general, they wouldn't be changing the text
... the goal is to deal w/ copyright
... you only do this when a Group is working
... that's why i think the decision of the Chair is important in this case

<jeff> +1

SteveZ: you don't want to leave it as the default behavior

<jeff> timeless++

SteveZ: I want to thank you, and the minute taker [ timeless ], for all of this discussion
... i came out with several actions, i'll review the minutes and do
... i'd like to resolve that i'll put a pending review answer to the last topic (everyone can be editors)

<jeff> +1 to Steve putting a Pending Review

<jeff> thanks , steve

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

11 Nov 2014

Attendees

Contents