13:59:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:59:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-irc
13:59:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
13:59:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
13:59:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:17 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
13:59:17 <trackbot> Date: 17 March 2015
14:00:18 <chaals> zakim, code?
14:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 7762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), chaals
14:00:38 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
14:00:46 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has now started
14:00:51 <Zakim> +Jeff
14:00:53 <Zakim> +SteveZ
14:01:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:01:12 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
14:01:12 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
14:04:07 <SteveZ_> No Action Items to review
14:04:18 <SteveZ_> Topic Issue-100
14:04:53 <SteveZ_> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/100
14:07:58 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: Dave Singger proposed putting in a note in the Process Doc that indicates that there is a possibility of the Review period closing before the end of the Exclusion Period
14:08:27 <SteveZ_> Chaals: I pointed out that such a note already exists in the Proposed Rec Section of the Doc
14:08:51 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: Proposes clsoing the issue with a reference to the Note
14:09:04 <SteveZ_> Steve: Any Objections to Closign the issue
14:09:07 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
14:10:05 <SteveZ_> Resolution:Issue-100 is closed with a reference to the note in the Proposed Recommendation Section
14:10:28 <SteveZ_> rssagent, make minutes
14:11:02 <chaals> close issue-100
14:11:02 <trackbot> Closed issue-100.
14:11:08 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
14:11:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
14:12:02 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes public
14:12:02 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', SteveZ_.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:12:38 <chaals> issue-100 note that there is already a reference to the issue at entry to proposed Rec - the only realistic occasion where we could transition during an exclusion opportunity
14:12:41 <SteveZ_> TOPIC: Wayne Carrs comments
14:14:47 <SteveZ_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html
14:16:18 <jeff> q+
14:17:52 <jeff> Jeff: Wayne has made some excellent points
14:18:16 <jeff> ... however the AB effort to establish best practices for charter revisions is addressing this.
14:18:32 <jeff> ... I recommend you refer Wayne to the fact that the AB is on top of this issue
14:18:47 <jeff> ... and let's see whether the AB best practices work addresses the problem
14:18:48 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: The AB, at its February F2F Meeting made a number of proposals to help fix the Charter extension problem
14:18:58 <jeff> ... so we don't need heavyweight additions to the process
14:19:08 <jeff> acl je
14:19:10 <jeff> ack je
14:19:30 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: Wayne has been made aware of the AB Discussion
14:21:16 <jeff> Wayne: wants s/general support/opinion of the proposal/
14:21:20 <jeff> +1
14:21:20 <SteveZ_> Wayne's number 5
14:21:30 <jeff> Chaals: Probably say "provide feedback"
14:21:47 <SteveZ_> Chaals agrees to make a change, likely to say, "provide feedback"
14:23:02 <SteveZ_> Wayne's comment 9
14:23:49 <SteveZ_> The issue of Apppeal of a Directors descion on an AC Review only if appealer made a dissent, i.e. a formal objection
14:24:53 <jeff> q+ to comment on that
14:25:58 <chaals> q+
14:26:15 <jeff> ack je
14:26:15 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on that
14:26:34 <Zakim> +dsinger
14:27:27 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: there are two aspects to the issue: (1) not being able to appeal if you voted yes and the Dirctor's decision said no and 2) is a formal objection really necessary to be able to appeal if you vote no
14:27:36 <dsinger___> dsinger___ has joined #w3process
14:28:17 <chaals> issue-7
14:28:17 <trackbot> issue-7 -- Make appealing decisions more believably possible and available -- raised
14:28:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/7
14:28:36 <dsinger___> Zakim, who is here?
14:28:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveZ, Jeff, chaals, dsinger
14:28:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see dsinger___, jeff, Zakim, RRSAgent, SteveZ_, chaals, mdjp, timeless, cwilso, trackbot
14:28:51 <SteveZ_> Jeff: Having a formal objection means that the Team has a topic and person to contact to sese if there is a middle ground that would remove the formal objection
14:29:29 <chaals> q+
14:29:52 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
14:29:59 <SteveZ_> Chaals: several points are being missed
14:30:17 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
14:31:06 <jeff> ack cha
14:31:12 <SteveZ_> ... as it stands now as long as there was dissent anyone can appeal
14:32:09 <SteveZ_> ... it might make sense to rewrite it to say if the director decides in opposition to what was proposed in the Review, then that decision can be appealed
14:32:30 <SteveZ_> ... this would be in addition to the dissent case
14:33:20 <dsinger___> Q+
14:33:43 <SteveZ_> Chaals: The decision to re-license a document under a different license should be appealable
14:34:10 <jeff> ack ds
14:34:35 <chaals> s/The decision/Wayne raises another issue which is that a director's decision
14:35:50 <SteveZ_> DSinger: The goal of this process, the Reivew process, is to assess consensus and if the Team and Director are in opposition to the proposed result then there is not concensus
14:36:23 <dsinger___> dsinger___ has joined #w3process
14:37:34 <SteveZ_> .... if you say something should happen and the director says no that is different than the director say yes when you have said no
14:38:13 <SteveZ_> ... you are always at liberty to say that a bad decision was made
14:38:41 <Dsinger_> Dsinger_ has joined #w3process
14:39:00 <Dsinger_> Zakim, agenda?
14:39:00 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:39:55 <SteveZ_> Chaals: I would recommend a rewrite of the section to say if the director makes a decision that is opposed to that proposed or there is dissent then the decision can be appeal.
14:40:12 <jeff> q+
14:40:17 <SteveZ_> ... this changes the second sentence of 8.2.
14:40:36 <chaals> ack je
14:41:22 <SteveZ_> Jeff: not sure why we are doing this for Proces 2015
14:42:04 <SteveZ_> ... this proposed change has not happened
14:43:01 <SteveZ_> Chaals: the Director's decision on the HTML Charter seems like a similar case
14:43:04 <Dsinger_> Dsinger_ has joined #w3process
14:43:28 <SteveZ_> Jeff: not in that case there was dissent so the decision was appealable by the current process
14:44:30 <SteveZ_> Chaals: these are comments on Process 2015, we can move our responses to Process 2016, but that seems unfriendly
14:45:29 <SteveZ_> Jeff: We have two level of reviews to insure that people get adequate time to insure the changes we are discussion are reviewed, adding new issues after the first review defeats that
14:46:00 <jeff> Jeff: Comments on "changes" we made for Process2015 should be addressed; Comments which add "new issues" for the process should be moved to Process2016.
14:46:51 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: I understand athe principle of what Jeff is saying, but it seems that one might be able to assess the level of controvery that woud arise if a given proposal were accepted
14:48:01 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: I think that this particular proposal is uncontroversial
14:48:04 <chaals> q+
14:48:23 <SteveZ_> Jeff: I do not know whether anyone on the Team might feel this is controversial
14:48:38 <jeff> Jeff: Seems that way.  But I don't know what Tim's reaction would be if we added (without his review) that his decisions to disapprove transition requests are now appealable.
14:49:26 <Dsinger_> I think I need a table showing for each kind of decision, its progression, all the way to appeal. I want to make sure we don't have appeal loops, for example
14:49:53 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
14:50:05 <SteveZ_> Chaals: In the spirit of agile Process development, it seems better to put the change in and see if it goes thru rather than wait to see if there is a controversy
14:50:11 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
14:51:36 <Dsinger_> Can we spend less time on the abstruse?
14:52:05 <SteveZ_> Mike: Seems like we are spending a lot of time on an edge case
14:52:34 <Dsinger_> I am cautious, like Jeff, of introducing unintentional bugs. If it works, leave it alone...
14:52:57 <SteveZ_> ......Chaals proposal seems to make sense and fixing the issue seems consonate with Process 2015
14:52:57 <Dsinger_> Q+
14:53:53 <SteveZ_> Jeff: This would require another round of W3M review, but I am not totally opposed to the change
14:54:15 <jeff> s/totally opposed/raising a formal objection/
14:54:24 <jeff> ack cha
14:54:28 <jeff> ack dsi
14:54:29 <dsinger____> dsinger____ has joined #w3process
14:54:32 <SteveZ_> Chaals: this is not a big issue, so it should not take a lot of W3M time to review
14:55:19 <SteveZ_> dsinger: do we really need to do the change? I would lean to postponing it till Process 2016 to make sure we do not introduce new problems
14:56:24 <Dsinger__> Dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:57:09 <jeff> q+
14:57:57 <jeff> ack je
14:58:22 <Dsinger__> Dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:58:26 <chaals> ACTION: chaals to produce a proposal for addressing Wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review.
14:58:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Produce a proposal for addressing wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2015-03-24].
14:58:27 <SteveZ_> TOPIC Issue-97
14:58:36 <chaals> issue-97?
14:58:36 <trackbot> issue-97 -- Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really accurate and representative? -- open
14:58:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97
14:59:38 <Dsinger_> Close it, willnotfix
14:59:42 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: Does anyone boject to closing Issue-97?
15:00:30 <SteveZ_> SteveZ: Hearing no ojections, it is closed.
15:00:59 <SteveZ_> RESOLUTION: issue-97 is cloased, "will not fix"
15:01:12 <chaals> close issue-97
15:01:12 <trackbot> Closed issue-97.
15:02:04 <Dsinger_> Advisory Body?
15:02:33 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
15:03:06 <chaals> rrsagent, make logs public
15:03:17 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:04:23 <Zakim> -chaals
15:04:24 <Zakim> -Jeff
15:04:28 <Zakim> -dsinger
15:04:29 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
15:04:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, SteveZ, [IPcaller], chaals, dsinger, Mike_Champion
15:04:37 <Dsinger_> Dsinger_ has left #w3process
15:05:25 <SteveZ_> s/Carrs/Carr's/
15:05:41 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:08:10 <SteveZ_> s/sese/see/
15:09:58 <SteveZ_> s/woud/would/
15:12:58 <SteveZ_> s/cloased/closed/
15:13:16 <SteveZ_> s/Resolution/RESOLUTION/
15:13:28 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:13:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:17:15 <SteveZ_> s/No action/Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0061.html \nNo action
15:17:28 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:17:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:19:40 <SteveZ_> s/Topic Iss/TOPIC: Iss/
15:19:49 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:19:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:20:50 <SteveZ_> s/TOPIC iss/TOPIC: Iss/
15:21:00 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:21:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
15:21:58 <SteveZ_> s/TOPIC Iss/TOPIC: Iss/
15:22:08 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:22:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
17:06:46 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
17:08:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
17:15:41 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process