15:03:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:03:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-irc
15:03:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:03:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:03:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
15:03:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM already started
15:03:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:03:59 <trackbot> Date: 09 December 2014
15:04:17 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Judy, SteveZ, Mike_Champion
15:05:46 <SteveZ> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0008.html
15:06:17 <SteveZ> chair: SteveZ
15:06:53 <timeless> Zakim, code
15:06:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'code', timeless
15:06:58 <timeless> Zakim, what is the code?
15:06:58 <Zakim> the conference code is 7762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), timeless
15:07:16 <Zakim> +timeless
15:07:20 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:07:20 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
15:07:24 <timeless> scribe: timeless
15:07:28 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:07:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:07:43 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:07:46 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:07:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:07:56 <timeless> issue-129?
15:07:56 <trackbot> issue-129 -- Should the Process define Coordination Groups? -- open
15:07:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129
15:08:11 <timeless> s/issue-129?/Topic: issue-129/
15:08:14 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:08:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:09:02 <SteveZ> TOPIC: Issue 129
15:09:18 <timeless> s/TOPIC: Issue 129//
15:09:48 <timeless> SteveZ: Judy you were going to ask your Coord Group how they felt about joining the
15:09:58 <timeless> Judy: i had a chance to talk to them Wednesday
15:10:07 <timeless> ... people are agreeable to that if they have to
15:10:19 <timeless> ... but they have a strong preference to keep it as a structured C<?> Group
15:10:43 <timeless> ... the other person active in a Coord Group, Phil Archer, it sounds like he's going to try to join the call as well
15:11:03 <timeless> ... I also heard from marie that she didn't think jeff was going to join the call
15:11:33 <timeless> ... i'd be interested in a discussion if a Community Group would be interested in a discussion about encouraging discussion (?) overall
15:11:44 <timeless> ... it's possible w/o removing kinds of coordination that are working for some groups
15:11:49 <timeless> ... to make things flexible/broader
15:11:54 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:12:06 <timeless> ... i understand that you (the TF) have a strong goal to streamline the process
15:12:12 <timeless> s/... I also heard from marie that she didn't think jeff was going to join the call//
15:12:19 <timeless> ... i understand that virginie is working on ...
15:12:28 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:12:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:12:48 <timeless> ... with the Coordination stuff that's working, it's the preference of the WAI Coordination Group folks that they'd be able to continue in that format if possible
15:13:02 <timeless> ... if that mechanism were removed from the charter, since they're still eager to meet in a Coordination format
15:13:05 <timeless> ... they'd still do that
15:13:17 <timeless> ... they're asking me to try to do more to keep the Coordination Group structure in tact
15:13:29 <timeless> ... i understand the interest of this group is to try to streamline the process
15:13:51 <timeless> ... in looking at that section of the Process document, it seems like there are some redundancy that could be eliminated
15:14:04 <timeless> ... the basic style of the WAI Coord Group has been going for a long time
15:14:11 <timeless> ... we use it to get input from the WAI Groups
15:14:22 <timeless> ... and we use it for timely input when talking about new verticals
15:14:36 <timeless> ... we're being encouraged internally to handle
15:14:37 <phila> phila has joined #w3process
15:14:41 <timeless> ... and the group has been extremely useful
15:14:57 <timeless> ... that's where we see the main part of our task looking ahead
15:15:01 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:15:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:15:11 <phila> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:15:11 <Zakim> +phila; got it
15:15:12 <timeless> ... feeding out to the WGs/public
15:15:23 <timeless> ... so there's interest in keeping it, but i understand the process preference
15:15:44 <timeless> SteveZ: we talked about the side discussion two weeks ago and agreed to delay until after your Dec 3rd telcon
15:15:54 <timeless> ... the general consensus then (not of a huge number of people)
15:16:06 <timeless> ... was that the goal is to try to only put into the process things that *need* to happen
15:16:11 <timeless> ... in a particular way
15:16:20 <timeless> s/particular way/*particular way*/
15:16:23 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
15:16:29 <timeless> ... there was total agreement that coordination is important
15:16:42 <timeless> ... but coming up w/ one mechanism that works for everyone seems to be very difficult
15:16:52 <timeless> ... i'm in a group that strongly rejected the Coordination Group approach
15:17:07 <timeless> ... in the Interactive area (HTML, CSS, SVG)
15:17:18 <timeless> ... they adopted alternative mechanisms for dealing w/ coordination
15:17:27 <timeless> ... it seemed more important to not require any particular thing
15:17:37 <timeless> ... at the time Coordination Groups were created, they were a management structure
15:17:48 <timeless> ... over time, that worked in certain places, and it works well for you, i understand that
15:18:00 <timeless> ... but it didn't work everywhere, and other mechanisms were taken into use
15:18:14 <timeless> ... in particular, the role of Domain leads (which aren't in the process), increased
15:18:24 <timeless> ... we don't want to stick that into the process, that's the organization of the Team
15:18:42 <timeless> ... this would be a good thing to be put into a Best Practices thing
15:18:49 <timeless> ... if we had such a place, but we don't at this time
15:18:58 <timeless> ... i don't see enough reason to keep it in the process
15:19:07 <timeless> ... i'd prefer to move it to some document about Best Practices
15:19:07 <Judy> q+
15:19:23 <timeless> mchampion: you summarized the points discussed previously
15:19:44 <timeless> ... this mechanism that works for some is fine, but it's a practice, not something to be baked into the process
15:19:53 <timeless> ... no one is asking Judy to change anything we do in W3C
15:20:00 <timeless> ... if a meeting is valuable, set it up
15:20:12 <timeless> ... if it's important for certain Groups, you could put it in the charter
15:20:31 <timeless> ... as it isn't important for dozens of WGs, it doesn't belong in Process
15:20:38 <timeless> Judy: SteveZ 's summary was helpful
15:20:52 <timeless> ... i tried to understand from the minutes and was concerned/confused
15:20:57 <timeless> ... as they indicated that WAI was the only
15:21:08 <timeless> ... but phila joined, and he's in another
15:21:25 <timeless> ... i liked the idea of trying to encourage more coordination, and more flexible/fluid forms of that
15:21:40 <timeless> ... even a statement in the Process encouraging coordination and pointing whereever could perhaps be useful
15:21:41 <phila> q+
15:21:45 <timeless> ack Judy
15:21:57 <timeless> ... it seems we do need evolution of the method, and multiple methods
15:22:11 <timeless> ... and we need coordination among the groups, and to enhance coordination amongst the parts of W3C
15:22:27 <timeless> ... one of the things people in our groups are concerned about losing if we lose our formal structure
15:22:36 <timeless> ... currently we do our discussion in Member Confidential space
15:22:45 <timeless> ... and i've checked with how people feel about this
15:22:57 <timeless> ... over time, people feel that's less important, but people feel there's still some need for that
15:23:24 <timeless> ... if we have groups that feel a need to work with member confidential information from other WGs that still work w/ Member Confidential
15:23:40 <timeless> ... and people who are familiar w/ how others talk in a group and can talk rapidly
15:23:48 <timeless> ... i'm curious, if we could put a line in the charter
15:24:03 <timeless> ... would it be acceptable to do some work in Member Confidential
15:24:14 <timeless> ... or would pressure apply on this?
15:24:20 <timeless> mchampion: you might want to ask ArtB about that
15:24:25 <timeless> ... he has strong preferences for public
15:24:34 <timeless> SteveZ: in W3C, it's up to the group to decide
15:24:55 <timeless> ... i personally believe there are certain topics that do not need to be open/should not be open
15:25:05 <timeless> ... and there are techniques that mitigate this, such as publishing minutes
15:25:14 <timeless> ... there's nothing in the process that says that a group has to be open
15:25:22 <timeless> ... AB is in a more closed space than Member
15:25:40 <timeless> ... although they try to publish minutes publicly, for discussion that don't need to be closed
15:25:41 <timeless> ack phila
15:26:12 <timeless> phila: hello, I'm Phil Archer, Data Activity lead, succeeded Ivan Herman
15:26:22 <timeless> ... and he stressed that I should set up a Coordination Group
15:26:25 <timeless> ... i thought everyone did it
15:26:34 <timeless> ... and was surprised to discover that only Judy and I do it
15:26:44 <timeless> ... i'm not here to stress support for Coordination Groups
15:27:07 <timeless> ... I had a case recently where I finally got to talk to darobin
15:27:20 <timeless> ... had i had it 6 months earlier, it could have quite radically changed the charter of a WG
15:27:32 <timeless> ... a different perspective on the charter had i had it earlier
15:27:40 <timeless> ... it doesn't concern me whether it's in the Process
15:27:48 <timeless> ... it's up to individual Staff members to make it happen
15:27:50 <SteveZ> s/darobin/Robin Berjon/
15:27:59 <timeless> ... there's a lot of things
15:28:06 <timeless> ... we have to report to the AC how we spent our time
15:28:09 <timeless> ... FT
15:28:26 <timeless> ... what worries me, is that it ceases to be part of the job that I can say i spent time on
15:28:30 <timeless> ... that our members are happy with
15:28:38 <timeless> ... we all agree that coordination is important
15:28:42 <mchampion> q+
15:28:58 <timeless> SteveZ: that's a new piece of information that i don't think anyone has brought up before
15:29:10 <timeless> ... both Members and Team management perception about time/what needs to be done
15:29:29 <timeless> ... there's a piece of this consensus that we need something in the process document that it is the responsibilities of the Chairs
15:29:37 <timeless> ... that coordination w/ related activities take place
15:29:47 <Judy> q+
15:29:58 <timeless> ... and presumably points to a place that talks about how coordination could take place
15:30:05 <timeless> ... and the Members would agree that coordination would take place
15:30:20 <timeless> ... the issue of how the Team evaluates its employees should up to the Team, and not the Process
15:30:32 <timeless> ... we're trying not to put concrete things in about how the Team should work
15:30:39 <jeff> q+
15:30:44 <timeless> ... i assume jeff can speak to that, but it doesn't need to be here
15:30:45 <timeless> ack mchampion
15:30:55 <timeless> mchampion: i was going to make the same point
15:31:04 <timeless> ... this is the value that the Team adds that the Members pay for
15:31:16 <timeless> ... it's W3M's job to organize this, and reward/manage the people to make it happen
15:31:31 <timeless> ... Members, PoV, we want this to happen, and we trust the Team to make it happen
15:31:42 <timeless> ... as seamlessly as possible
15:31:44 <timeless> ack Judy
15:31:50 <timeless> Judy: i think this is a helpful piece as well
15:32:05 <timeless> ... for coordination to work, it needs the Team to facilitate it happening
15:32:11 <timeless> ... but also Chairs to come to whatever form it is
15:32:18 <timeless> ... part of the request to retain structure is
15:32:38 <timeless> ... currently, some chairs find it helpful for their management in their organization to see that this is the structure
15:32:42 <timeless> ... i think we can work around that
15:32:55 <timeless> ... part of the request was that formal chartering helps in time allocation
15:33:07 <timeless> ... i want to raise one other thing, less to do w/ my Coordination Group
15:33:23 <timeless> ... but maybe to how Best Practices on coordination might be written
15:33:29 <timeless> ... that things are Discoverable
15:33:40 <timeless> ... right now, we have very few chartered coordination groups
15:33:48 <timeless> ... the coordination that's going on tends to be more ad-hoc
15:33:59 <timeless> ... the coordination that phila described is more typical than is probably ideal
15:34:09 <timeless> ... w/ a group that's findable, we have people come to us, because we're very discoverable
15:34:29 <timeless> ... i'd say that, how coordination is handled in Process going forward, if there was something not just encouraging coordination
15:34:36 <timeless> ... but also that they be findable very readily
15:35:00 <timeless> ... possibly a place that they post that there's coordination about this going on _here_
15:35:09 <timeless> ... the more that coordination goes underground
15:35:24 <mchampion> q?
15:35:28 <timeless> ... where things -- these new groups are covering X scope and getting sorted out
15:35:43 <timeless> SteveZ: that was one of the points that came up at the Chairs meeting at TPAC
15:35:52 <timeless> ... where we sort of said we were proposing to cancel this
15:36:05 <timeless> ... the comment that we should find a better mechanism
15:36:19 <timeless> ... in some sense, the announcement list that was created is doing some of that
15:36:29 <timeless> ... it's doing it in a broadcast, and everything all-together mechanism
15:36:41 <timeless> ... it's probably too much data for anybody to be really follow, unless we had filtering mechanisms
15:36:46 <timeless> ... and i don't know what those would be
15:36:59 <timeless> ... you're not the first one to raise the point that we need better mechanisms for people to know what's going on in the org
15:37:00 <timeless> q?
15:37:01 <timeless> ack jeff
15:37:21 <timeless> jeff: i mostly wanted to comment on phila 's comment on Time Allocation
15:37:41 <timeless> ... once it's out of the process, coordination groups won't be accountable in how we report things to the Membership
15:37:51 <timeless> ... that's a new issue, thanks phila for bringing it up
15:38:02 <timeless> ... i agree w/ mchampion, it's something the Team can figure out
15:38:18 <timeless> ... it dawns on me that we have the same thing re: removing Activities
15:38:23 <timeless> ... I believe this is a fixable problem
15:38:46 <timeless> ... If we were to eliminate Coordination Groups, the way that we'd fix the problem, we'd take the time assigned to Coordination Groups
15:38:55 <timeless> ... we'd average/blend it into the time spent on the various WGs that are related
15:39:21 <timeless> ... i'd share w/ the TF that the Membership tends to review allocation of time to WG at times like a Hawk
15:39:46 <timeless> ... they may see that in the year after introducing the changes to remove Activities/Coordination Groups that the amount of staffing time is going up
15:39:54 <timeless> ... when we draft the announcement for wide-review
15:40:17 <timeless> ... i'd appreciate it if the TF and the AB communicate that as a consequence of these changes, there will be a slight uptick in the amount of time assigned to these WGS
15:40:20 <timeless> s/WGS/WGs/
15:40:31 <timeless> ... that was formerly assigned to Coordination Groups/Activities
15:40:44 <timeless> ... i think if we do that, it's only a small problem
15:40:56 <timeless> SteveZ: IanJ has said that the place Chairs go to get information
15:41:06 <timeless> ... i don't think that that has happened in a significant way eyt
15:41:09 <timeless> s/eyt/yet/
15:41:12 <timeless> jeff: that's correct
15:41:25 <timeless> ... there was an earlier discussion between you (SteveZ) and Judy
15:41:41 <timeless> ... we need a stub in the Process to underline the importance of coordination
15:41:48 <timeless> ... and it'd be good if the Editor or someone did this
15:41:52 <timeless> ... as well as a pointer
15:42:03 <timeless> ... we could basically duplicate the current text and put it in the guidebook
15:42:05 <timeless> ... and have a pointer to that
15:42:26 <Judy> q+
15:42:28 <timeless> ... and if/when IanJ gets around to updating the guidebook, we'd update the pointer in the Process document
15:42:31 <timeless> q+
15:42:47 <timeless> ack Judy
15:42:49 <timeless> Judy: i like that idea
15:43:11 <timeless> ... i'd encourage also, it'd be easy to list individual Best Practices that different clusters of groups could take up for coordination
15:43:27 <timeless> ... i think it might be harder to enhance discoverability of clusters to eachother
15:43:34 <timeless> ... and i'd be happy to brainstorm w/ SteveZ on that
15:43:46 <timeless> ... getting early stage visibility across W3C could be extremely helpful
15:44:17 <timeless> q+ to ask if we'd need to update the Process as we change the Best Practice, or just update the Best Practice
15:44:46 <SteveZ> ACTION SteveZ: draft text on coordiantion responsibility for the Process Document and edit Guide to begin collecting Best Practicres for same
15:44:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Draft text on coordiantion responsibility for the process document and edit guide to begin collecting best practicres for same [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-12-16].
15:45:00 <timeless> q?
15:45:22 <timeless> SteveZ: i'll check w/ IanJ and see what he wants to do it
15:45:32 <timeless> ... i suspect he'll agree w/ jeff that the best place to do it is within the guide
15:45:36 <timeless> ... i don't think there's a better place
15:45:56 <timeless> ... with that, i think we can agree, that the sentiment is to remove Coordination Groups from the Process
15:46:11 <timeless> ... replace it with a note about the importance of coordination, and a pointer to the guidebook
15:46:31 <timeless> ... and a note to Membership that this will affect the assignment of people's time
15:46:38 <timeless> q?
15:46:38 <timeless> ack me
15:46:39 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if we'd need to update the Process as we change the Best Practice, or just update the Best Practice
15:47:07 <timeless> ... in a way that doesn't change people's actual time, just the listing of the allocation
15:47:39 <Judy> q+
15:47:39 <timeless> jeff: my only point is that if we change where the document lives, we'd need to change the pointer
15:47:46 <timeless> timeless: well, couldn't we point to a redirect
15:47:50 <timeless> ... and just change the redirect
15:47:54 <timeless> ack Judy
15:48:14 <timeless> Judy: if there's a way to get a stable pointer, the way timeless is suggesting, could be a redirect, but gets you to the right best practices
15:48:16 <timeless> ... that'd be useful
15:48:20 <timeless> ... from my PoV
15:48:33 <timeless> SteveZ: i think timeless 's point is a good one, i'll coordinate that w/ IanJ
15:48:37 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:48:37 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
15:48:54 <timeless> ... i think that's it for Issue-129, it isn't quite closed, but w/ my action, i think we should be able to close it
15:48:58 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:48:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:49:24 <timeless> topic: CfC on TAG election
15:49:31 <timeless> SteveZ: afaict, the CfC failed
15:49:35 <timeless> ... there were 3 responses
15:49:43 <timeless> ... one from chaals saying that he didn't like it
15:49:45 <timeless> ... one from XXX
15:49:47 <timeless> ... one from dka
15:49:59 <timeless> ... the rules that chaals established in the Process CG
15:50:06 <jeff> q+
15:50:09 <timeless> ... seems to indicate that the CfC failed
15:50:20 <Zakim> -Judy
15:50:22 <timeless> ... i think we have a difficulty of reaching consensus, except on phone calls
15:50:39 <Zakim> -phila
15:50:53 <timeless> mchampion: chaals seems to have trouble coming to these calls, is that a scheduling issue?
15:51:09 <timeless> ... my non vote, i'm happy w/ it, but i don't really see the problem in the first place
15:51:26 <timeless> jeff: this one said silence does not mean assent
15:51:31 <timeless> s/jeff/SteveZ/
15:51:40 <timeless> jeff: i think a large problem was that people didn't understand they needed to vote
15:51:52 <timeless> ... i think many would have viewed it as an improvement over the current situation
15:52:00 <timeless> ... that's the only reason i voted in favor
15:52:03 <timeless> s/XXX/jeff/
15:52:17 <timeless> ... it might be useful to point out to the proponents that this was defeated due to lack of interest
15:52:25 <timeless> ... that if they want to bring this forward in the future
15:52:31 <timeless> ... they need to get out the vote
15:52:46 <timeless> SteveZ: part of the problem is that WebApps CfCs say "silence votes w/ consensus"
15:52:58 <timeless> ... chaals in setting up this CG, since he's chair of the CG
15:53:09 <timeless> ... recognized this CG didn't have a standard working culture
15:53:16 <timeless> ... and set it up to require Affirmative action
15:53:22 <timeless> jeff: i think his rule is right for this group
15:53:32 <timeless> ... in WebApps, people may have already worked on an issue, and are tuned in
15:53:37 <timeless> ... and should go forward
15:53:43 <timeless> ... but here, the vast majority of the CG is tuned out
15:53:57 <timeless> SteveZ: i guess that most people assume the same rules as WebApps
15:54:05 <timeless> ... i don't know what chaals's objection is
15:54:22 <timeless> mchampion: can we keep the CfC open until chaals explains?
15:54:32 <timeless> ... if it's just he basically agrees and just doesn't like the wording
15:54:40 <timeless> ... then he should provide new wording
15:54:47 <timeless> SteveZ: i'll announce the failure
15:55:01 <timeless> jeff: i think the reason it failed is that supporters didn't announce their support
15:55:38 <timeless> ... chaals has been a leading public/private proponent that the TAG/AB not be controlled by a small group
15:55:42 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
15:55:42 <Zakim> timeless should no longer be muted
15:55:57 <timeless> mchampion: i'm surprised by this
15:56:09 <timeless> jeff: he always makes this point that he doesn't want two companies to control the TAG/AB
15:56:16 <timeless> SteveZ: i agree
15:56:29 <timeless> ... i don't want to change the rules of company has at most one
15:56:44 <timeless> jeff: the big issue is that people didn't vote/participate
15:57:12 <timeless> Issue-141?
15:57:12 <trackbot> Issue-141 -- Improve Errata management in W3C -- open
15:57:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141
15:57:19 <timeless> s/Issue-141?/Topic: Issue-141/
15:57:27 <timeless> SteveZ: got a setback
15:58:03 <timeless> ... PSIG discussion of PP FAQ-37 seems to indicate a desire to change the FAQ
15:58:18 <timeless> ... and therefore change the rules of what would be legitimate maintenance that keeps the Patent Commitments in tact
15:58:29 <jeff> q+
15:58:32 <timeless> ... we'd need to consider what would happen
15:58:43 <timeless> ... there are 4 kinds of changes under maintenance
15:58:47 <timeless> ... 1. no text-change
15:58:52 <timeless> ... 2. editorial
15:58:59 <timeless> ... 3. changes that don't introduce new features
15:59:01 <timeless> ... 4. new features
15:59:21 <timeless> ... PSIG discussion seems to be "we don't know what a new feature is", so any change that isn't 1/2 would be 4
15:59:39 <timeless> ... PSIG hasn't updated the FAQ, but it seems like they probably will
16:00:12 <timeless> ... I sent a note to Don Deutsch and Scott Peterson, chairs of PSIG asking for an update
16:00:30 <timeless> Zakim, mute m
16:00:30 <Zakim> Mike_Champion should now be muted
16:00:32 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
16:00:32 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
16:00:36 <timeless> zakim, unmute mik
16:00:38 <Zakim> Mike_Champion should no longer be muted
16:00:57 <timeless> mchampion: this CG is for what's desirable for W3
16:01:19 <timeless> jeff: PSIG members from MS, Intel, Apple are basically supporting positions which would set back our intentions to be more agile w/ our process
16:01:52 <timeless> s/MS, Intel, Apple/some companies/
16:02:05 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
16:02:05 <Zakim> timeless should no longer be muted
16:02:18 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
16:02:18 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
16:02:19 <jeff> q+
16:02:24 <timeless> ack jeff
16:03:40 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes?
16:03:40 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'draft minutes'
16:03:44 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:03:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:04:35 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
16:04:35 <Zakim> timeless should no longer be muted
16:06:10 <timeless> SteveZ: we need to look at whether adding an Exclusion Call to the Formal Publication of Errata that makes it Normative
16:06:24 <timeless> ... i don't remember if there's a formal exclusion opportunity there, but perhaps we need to add one
16:07:38 <timeless> topic: Schedule
16:07:47 <timeless> SteveZ: i suspect next week will be the last meeting of the year
16:07:55 <timeless> ... that people will be too distracted on the 23rd
16:08:24 <timeless> s/week/week (Dec 16th)/
16:08:37 <timeless> ... we'll tentatively resume January 6th
16:08:44 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:08:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:09:06 <timeless> s/Topic: issue-129/Topic: Issue-129/
16:10:01 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
16:10:16 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:10:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:11:01 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
16:11:07 <timeless> trackbot, end meeting
16:11:07 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:11:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Judy, SteveZ, Mike_Champion, timeless, Jeff, phila
16:11:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:11:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
16:11:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:11:16 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-actions.rdf :
16:11:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SteveZ to draft text on coordiantion responsibility for the Process Document and edit Guide to begin collecting Best Practicres for same [1]
16:11:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-w3process-irc#T15-44-46