15:03:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:03:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-irc
15:03:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:03:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:03:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
15:03:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM already started
15:03:26 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:03:26 <trackbot> Date: 20 January 2015
15:03:59 <SteveZ> Chair: SteveZ
15:05:26 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:05:43 <chaals> zakim, code?
15:05:43 <Zakim> the conference code is 7762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), chaals
15:05:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:06:03 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
15:06:03 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
15:06:07 <SteveZ> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0049.html
15:07:55 <jeff> scribenick: jeff
15:08:03 <SteveZ> TOPIC: Open Action Items
15:08:38 <jeff> Steve: Action 46 belonging to DS
15:08:44 <jeff> ... believe it was done.
15:08:54 <SteveZ> Close Action-46 Consider proposing minimal changes to the nov errata revision to address concerns
15:09:50 <dsinger> yes, I suggested such minimal changes.  I am not sure Chaals agrees with them, and had hoped to cover that also.
15:10:01 <chaals> [David did send a reply]
15:10:04 <jeff> Topic: Issue-141 Errata management
15:10:20 <chaals> close action-46
15:10:20 <trackbot> Closed action-46.
15:10:41 <jeff> SZ: I sent a message yesterday
15:10:49 <jeff> ... pull out separate issues in discussion of 141
15:11:15 <jeff> ... Issue #1: Original issue
15:11:24 <jeff> ... Issue #2: Can RECs be updated in place
15:11:43 <jeff> ... Issue #3: Are there 2 separate processes; one for errata and one for new features?
15:11:52 <jeff> ... propose to treat independently
15:12:19 <jeff> ... Consensus that we can ask groups to be more responsive
15:12:38 <jeff> ... Chaals felt that current requirement (CR) was adequate
15:12:46 <jeff> ... I feel must be more frequent
15:12:56 <jeff> ... but Chaals was only objector
15:13:10 <jeff> CMN: Repeat?  Doesn't match reality.
15:13:22 <jeff> SZ: Because wide review is only at CR.
15:13:32 <jeff> CMN: No, wide review happens throughout.
15:13:41 <jeff> SZ: Only demonstrated at CR.
15:13:55 <jeff> CMN: But need to do throughout to get to CR.
15:14:21 <jeff> SZ: On second issue, I propose to open another action
15:14:26 <chaals> s/requirement (CR)/requirement to demonstrate that errata have been widely reviewed as part of publishing a revised Recommendation/
15:14:27 <jeff> ... Can live with David Singer's suggested text
15:14:49 <jeff> ... not that I or Elika like it - but it is an improvement
15:14:50 <jeff> q+
15:15:04 <jeff> CMN: I object to some of David's text, but it can be an improvement.
15:16:35 <jeff> Jeff: Let's focus on Issue #1.
15:16:57 <jeff> SZ: But since November Issue #2 has been part of the resolution of Issue-141.
15:16:57 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
15:17:12 <chaals> [I wrote my specific objections in reply to your proposal David. A couple of points, plus the fact that the change was minimal, i.e. maintaining maximal verbosity…]
15:17:31 <jeff> ... and David's is an improvement over current text (although it does not go as far as Elika's)
15:17:40 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
15:18:49 <jeff> [Jeff clarifies that Issue #2 was not whether RECs can be updated in place, but whether a document can exist with Errata text + REC text]
15:19:04 <mchampion> q+
15:19:08 <jeff> ack je
15:19:27 <jeff> [Steve looks for David's proposal]
15:19:39 <SteveZ> David's proposed text related to Issue 2 of my 3 issues: Working groups may decide how to document errata. Examples of acceptable errata management include an errata page, possibly auto-generated from a database, or a document that identifies itself as based on the Recommendation text and clearly identifies the errata and any proposed corrections.
15:19:43 <mchampion> q-
15:20:05 <jeff> q+
15:21:01 <jeff> Jeff: I believe that David and I agreed that the latter approach could be identified as a best practice.
15:21:10 <jeff> SZ: Could be.  I saw parts of that discussion.
15:21:21 <jeff> ... Yup, I now verify that DS said OK to that.
15:21:31 <jeff> ack je
15:21:51 <jeff> SZ: Jeff, make a suggestion of wording.
15:22:53 <jeff> Jeff: The editor is really good at that.
15:23:07 <dsinger> change second sentence: The best practice is a document that identifies itself as based on the Recommendation text and clearly identifies the errata and any proposed corrections; other approaches include various forms of an errata page, possibly auto-generated from a database.
15:23:18 <jeff> ... being faithful to DS's intent - and figuring out the right flow to insert the words "best practice"
15:23:19 <SteveZ> Jeff's request that  was agreed to by David is: One item that I emphasized in my version is that the document that bases on REC text and clearly identifies proposed corrections should be identified as a best practice.
15:24:00 <jeff> Jeff: Look at David's compilation above.
15:24:31 <jeff> SZ: I agree.  David's sentence captures what we wanted to do
15:24:37 <jeff> ... OK,, Chaals?
15:24:41 <dsinger> oops, should add “It is also a best practice to alert readers of the recommendation to the existence of the errata, via a statement and link in the header of the recommendation"?
15:24:41 <jeff> CMN: Yeah.
15:25:09 <jeff> SZ: Third issue.  I would like to make it a separate issue and add it to our queue.
15:25:22 <jeff> ... Mixed feelings - two separate docs is an annoyance
15:25:35 <jeff> ... Waiting for new features is not practical.
15:25:36 <jeff> q+
15:25:44 <chaals> RESOLUTION: Incorporate David Singer's text for issue-141
15:25:45 <chaals> q+
15:25:49 <Zakim> -chaals
15:25:51 <jeff> ... more discussion is needed to resolve that.
15:26:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:26:08 <jeff> ... We always had a separation between errata and new work
15:26:15 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
15:26:15 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
15:26:17 <jeff> ... recommend postpone Issue #3
15:28:10 <jeff> Jeff: We could point out that for Docs that get new releases in less than a year, the need for Errata is attenuated compared to docs that take years to get from release to release
15:28:25 <jeff> SZ: Problem is that people's expectations don't meet reality.
15:28:29 <jeff> ack je
15:28:33 <jeff> ack cha
15:28:50 <jeff> CMN: There is nothing in the current requirement which says Errata cannot be @@@
15:29:02 <dsinger> issue 3: can the WG put new features and errata into the same document? do we need to say anything?  clearly the approval needed for a document is the heaviest one related to the changes, so if you mix, you have to do ‘revised rec’ approval, if you have just errata, you have ‘edited rec’ approval (which is lighter).  is this not obvious?
15:29:07 <jeff> ... If people are going slowly in specs, we can't change in process
15:29:32 <jeff> ... process asks issues to be done in timely fashion - not all groups do that.
15:29:48 <jeff> ... we can ask people to show errata in Editor's draft.
15:29:56 <jeff> ... Can do that happily in existing process
15:30:11 <jeff> ... My objection had been enforcing a system that makes it impossible.
15:30:19 <jeff> ... Some groups update frequently
15:30:24 <jeff> ... Let's not get in their way
15:30:27 <jeff> SZ: Agreed.
15:31:10 <jeff> ... David's suggestion I believe addresses your concerns.
15:31:25 <jeff> ... You can do what you would like.
15:31:32 <jeff> CMN: I think so.
15:31:39 <jeff> ... ta ta ta ta ta
15:33:41 <jeff> ... I believe David's suggestion addresses most of my concerns
15:33:47 <jeff> ... but it is not in front of me
15:33:53 <jeff> ... looking for it
15:34:52 <SteveZ> David's full, unmodified proposal is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0038.html
15:35:11 <jeff> ... No, I still object to the definition of errata
15:35:31 <jeff> ... needless distinction between what I do for errata and what I do for everything else.
15:35:45 <jeff> ... David says we can use this for other purposes
15:35:51 <jeff> ... won't be read that way
15:36:05 <mchampion> q+
15:36:07 <jeff> ... people will interpret it in most bureaucractic way
15:36:24 <jeff> SZ: Let's note your concern but move forward with David's text.
15:36:34 <jeff> CMN: WFM
15:36:46 <jeff> MC: That is the nub of the issue.
15:36:59 <jeff> ... Some changes (errata) can be made in place with no PP implications.
15:37:06 <chaals> s/cannot be @@@/cannot be tracked by publishing a draft revision of the document, such as an editor's draft/
15:37:15 <jeff> ... Don't need Revised REC process.
15:37:20 <jeff> ... not needed for typos
15:37:35 <chaals> q+
15:37:37 <dsinger> I sent revised text to the reflector just now.
15:37:44 <jeff> ... Remember: Root issue is the claim (some credibility) that our DOCs have errors and are out of date within weeks of pubs
15:37:51 <jeff> ... and we are doing nothing
15:38:11 <jeff> ... real changes require more handling
15:38:17 <chaals> ack mch
15:38:20 <jeff> ... but let's address easy stuff easily.
15:38:35 <jeff> SZ: This is suitable for Issue-152.
15:39:21 <jeff> MC: Thanks, Steve.
15:39:33 <dsinger> I think the issue with allowing edits with no review is when someone disagrees whether they have PP implications. Minimal review allows an AC rep to say “sorry, you just entangled the infamous Mordred patent, which the WG was careful to avoid in the Rec”
15:39:35 <jeff> CMN: When people complain about our mistakes - these are not typos
15:39:49 <jeff> ... implementors changed their mind or the spec is ambiguous
15:40:00 <jeff> ... resolving requires a substantive change
15:40:22 <jeff> ... whole process, CR, etc.
15:40:40 <dsinger> s/on incorrect/or incorrect/
15:40:56 <jeff> ... 10 week process for 3 hours of actual work
15:41:03 <jeff> ... this is not overly onerous
15:41:09 <jeff> ... your characterization is wrong
15:41:16 <jeff> MC: Fair enough.
15:41:26 <jeff> ... as Steve says, we will talk about it later
15:41:44 <jeff> ... But generally we should make it easier to fix things that are unambiguously wrong
15:42:05 <jeff> CMN: While I'm here
15:42:37 <jeff> ... I've seen huge editorial changes which seems unimportant but make a big difference
15:42:42 <SteveZ> +1 for Chaals concerns
15:42:53 <jeff> ... actually REC process is really really easy
15:43:52 <jeff> Steve: I would like to resolve ISSUE-141 with David's text together with the modification he proposed today.
15:44:04 <jeff> ... Objections?
15:44:15 <jeff> ... consider that resolved.
15:44:48 <jeff> Resolved:  We will resolve ISSUE-141 with David's text together with the modification he proposed today.
15:44:54 <SteveZ> RESOLUTION: resolve ISSUE-141 with David's text together with the modification he proposed today.
15:45:02 <jeff> q+
15:45:15 <jeff> ack cha
15:45:40 <jeff> ack jef
15:45:48 <jeff> Jeff: Will we see a version today?
15:46:00 <jeff> Chaals: I will aim to get it out tonight.  Feasible, but I have some conflicts.
15:46:39 <jeff> SZ: Jeff, I hope you can supplement the text with these minutes.
15:47:07 <jeff> ... I also would like to see the wide review section updated.
15:47:19 <jeff> CMN: I think it is just a resolution I missed.
15:47:26 <jeff> SZ: Actually, 2 resolutions.
15:47:33 <jeff> ... I sent you the text with all the changes.
15:47:48 <jeff> ISSUE-152?
15:47:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-152 -- Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs -- raised
15:47:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152
15:48:46 <jeff> SZ: Class 1 errata can be made by the team (structural changes) and Class 2 (editorial changes) can be done by WG in Process2005
15:49:00 <jeff> ... Elika noted it was dropped in Process2014 and requested that it be restored.
15:49:08 <jeff> ... Chaals wasn't so sure.
15:49:16 <chaals> q+
15:49:16 <jeff> ... I'd like to deal with it in 2015.
15:49:32 <jeff> CMN: I don't recall the discussion
15:49:49 <jeff> ... I believe that it is because editorial changes are not necessarily editorial
15:49:56 <jeff> ... not a good idea to wave them through
15:50:02 <jeff> ... and if they are really editorial, noone cares
15:50:17 <jeff> SZ: Test case: Due to editing the spec contradicts itself
15:50:30 <chaals> q+
15:50:34 <jeff> ... You want to fix incorrect one.
15:50:42 <jeff> ... Not changing, just removing inconsistency
15:50:47 <jeff> ... important
15:51:01 <jeff> ack cha
15:51:16 <jeff> CMN: Silently changing the spec without a BIG warning is a terrible idea
15:51:51 <jeff> ... Some people are doing the wrong thing that they read in the spec
15:52:03 <jeff> ... Not telling the public is irresponsible.
15:52:18 <jeff> ... Nonsense to assume that there are people not following the WG.
15:52:21 <dsinger> we should be able to cope with a message to ACs “WG X has changed Rec Y to fix errata and seeks to publish as an edited Rec. OK?” is that really too heavy?
15:52:27 <chaals> s/public through the review process/
15:52:39 <mchampion> q+
15:53:34 <jeff> Jeff: I see Chaals' concern, but I don't know if it happens in practice.
15:53:37 <chaals> q+
15:53:42 <jeff> ... we did not have problems between 2005-2014
15:53:50 <jeff> MC: Jeff says it well.
15:53:57 <jeff> ... no problems for 9 years
15:54:09 <jeff> ... it was just an unintended consequence of text clarification
15:54:30 <jeff> ... I hear Chaals' concern, but the question is - what is the most authoritative source.
15:54:33 <jeff> ... It's the REC
15:54:49 <jeff> ... Yes, people might be using the original (now deprecated) version
15:55:02 <jeff> ... but more likely is that people will look on-line.
15:55:09 <jeff> ... sure we should flag it with changes
15:55:24 <jeff> ack mch
15:55:45 <jeff> ... the DOC itself is the authoritative thing
15:55:59 <chaals> q?
15:56:20 <jeff> SZ: Three people (including myself) feel it was an unintended change.
15:56:33 <jeff> ... I'll go back and check the history (whether intended or not)
15:56:38 <jeff> ... and resolve based on that.
15:56:50 <jeff> ... If unintended we revert to Process2005 (on this point)
15:56:56 <jeff> ... If intended we document it as such
15:57:17 <jeff> Action: on Steve to dredge up history behind Issue-152
15:57:18 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/users>.
15:57:41 <jeff> Chaals: While this did not bite us much for 9 years
15:57:50 <jeff> ... it is because people ignored us.
15:58:27 <jeff> ... the authority should be document
15:59:46 <jeff> ... scenario is more serious than you are thinking about
15:59:53 <jeff> ... I believe the change was deliberate
15:59:58 <jeff> ... I recall it was discussed.
16:00:08 <jeff> SZ: I simply don't know.  Let me investigate.
16:00:11 <jeff> CMN: OK
16:00:19 <jeff> SZ: This is not the most important thing.
16:00:39 <chaals> [FWIW Steve's test case is a class 3 situation - conformance is unclear since the spec is ambiguous, and this therefore changes conformance]
16:00:42 <jeff> ... set of open issues will be identified prior to Tokyo.
16:01:22 <jeff> SZ: Chaals, please update 141 and 148 as Jeff would strongly appreciate.
16:01:25 <jeff> CMN: Noted.
16:01:26 <Zakim> -chaals
16:01:29 <jeff> SZ: Thanks.
16:01:33 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
16:01:36 <jeff> [adjourned]
16:01:45 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:01:49 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
16:02:13 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:02:14 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
16:02:14 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveZ, Jeff, [IPcaller], chaals, Mike_Champion
17:03:59 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
18:08:36 <SteveZ> s/ISSUE-152?/TOPIC: Issue-151/
18:08:54 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:08:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
18:09:53 <SteveZ> s/Issue-151/Issue-152/
18:10:04 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:10:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
18:11:15 <SteveZ> s/ISSUE-152?/s/ISSUE-152?/TOPIC: Issue-152/
18:11:24 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:11:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
18:13:19 <SteveZ> attendees: Mike Champion, Jeff Jaffe, Chaals McCathieNevile, Steve Zilles
18:13:33 <SteveZ> regrets: Josh Sorel
18:13:45 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:13:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
18:23:44 <chaals> s/Sorel/Soref/
18:26:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
18:26:21 <chaals> rrasagent, draft minutes
18:48:43 <SteveZ> s/Josh Sorel/Josh_Sorel/
18:48:53 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:48:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
18:50:36 <SteveZ> s/Josh Sorel/Josh_Soref/
18:50:44 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:50:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
20:05:55 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
22:53:10 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process