13:57:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:57:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-w3process-irc
13:58:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
13:58:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
13:58:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
13:58:03 <trackbot> Date: 19 May 2015
13:59:46 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has now started
13:59:53 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
14:01:23 <Zakim> +SteveZ
14:02:45 <Zakim> +Jeff
14:03:43 <Zakim> +dsinger
14:03:51 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
14:04:24 <dsinger> revert for that section?
14:04:48 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], SteveZ, Jeff, dsinger
14:04:56 <SteveZ_> Regrets: Timeless
14:05:16 <SteveZ_> Chair: SteveZ
14:05:21 <jeff> scribe: jeff
14:05:28 <jeff> Mike: Options
14:05:44 <jeff> ... #1 Director can overrule the formal objections.
14:05:56 <dsinger> suggest that we remove that section, hope the case doesn’t arise this year, and deal with it in the general review of the TAG in process2016
14:06:01 <jeff> ... #2 delete the TAG piece altogether
14:06:03 <jeff> q+
14:07:32 <SteveZ_> Jeff: Rest of you are suggesting that we take approach 2, just regress the TAG change
14:07:50 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
14:08:00 <SteveZ_> ... I think that approach 1, overruling the FO, would be best
14:08:03 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (65%), SteveZ (74%), Jeff (17%)
14:08:22 <SteveZ_> ... so far only 8 people have supportted the change to the Process
14:09:42 <Zakim> -SteveZ
14:10:15 <Zakim> +SteveZ
14:11:20 <jeff> Jeff: For any TAG approach there are dissenters.
14:11:40 <SteveZ_> Jeff: I am concerned that deleting just the TAG piece would allow filibusturing and we would make no progress
14:12:08 <jeff> ... if you allow the objection to prevent change, then there could be a "livelock" situation where there are always some objectors to change freezing the existing situation.
14:13:17 <jeff> ... I would actually prefer option #3 - back out the entire set of changes, compared to just backing out the TAG piece.
14:18:32 <jeff> Steve: Process 2016
14:18:54 <jeff> ... Topics: TAG structure, CG transition, Membership organizations
14:19:18 <jeff> ... updating the guide
14:19:47 <jeff> ... meeting requirements, evolution of process, definition of "WG decision"
14:19:52 <jeff> ... appeals
14:20:39 <jeff> ... Jeff, sound good?
14:20:44 <jeff> Jeff: Yes.
14:20:54 <jeff> Steve: I asked Ian who should maintain CG process
14:21:06 <jeff> ... Ian said "not me"
14:21:16 <jeff> ... Also there is a list of works to do.
14:21:40 <jeff> ... Ian is OK with task force taking on work of editing CG process.
14:21:46 <jeff> ... Chaals doesn't want to do it
14:22:05 <jeff> ... CG doc should be separate from WG doc (separate change cycles)
14:22:31 <jeff> ... this task force should take on maintenance organization.
14:23:39 <jeff> ... Jeff, what do you think?
14:23:56 <jeff> Jeff: If the AB wants to formalize the CG process, then the AB would need to own it.
14:24:15 <jeff> ... but maintenance could happen in the CG; just as we do for the formal process.
14:24:19 <jeff> Steve: I agree.
14:24:32 <jeff> David: Have we defined the CG process "problem"?
14:24:57 <jeff> Mike: I learned at the AC meeting that I was wrong about making references to the CG in the process document.
14:25:03 <jeff> q+
14:25:17 <SteveZ_> Jeff: Team has current responsibility for CG Process. If it moves, the AB is the natural place to move it too since they have the Process responsibility. The AB might then use the Process TF to do brainstorming
14:25:27 <dsinger> the process TF doesn’t ‘own’ anything. it merely works and suggests/recommends
14:25:41 <jeff> ... CG can own the CG process evolution.
14:25:45 <dsinger> and the AB merely ‘advises’ as well
14:26:35 <jeff> Steve: Better to say that the CG drives it.
14:26:44 <jeff> David: Or the Membership could if they wanted to.
14:28:19 <SteveZ_> Jeff: the Ownership of the CG Process belongs to the Director. I would object to giving ownership of a critical process to a CG.
14:28:39 <jeff> David: we are talking about documentation of transition from CGs to WG.
14:30:18 <SteveZ_> The Wiki that Ian Jacobs refered to, having the topics that need updates to the CG Process is http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Cg_2013
14:30:25 <jeff> Jeff: Should this be something that we document - or that individual CGs or WGs document.
14:30:34 <jeff> David: It would be best to have a best practices document.
14:31:10 <jeff> Steve: Issue around fairness in CGs.
14:31:16 <jeff> ... anti-trust rules
14:31:25 <jeff> ... there are no procedures for CGs.
14:32:55 <jeff> Jeff: I agree.  Making clear that CGs are not providing formal standards.  If they are more fair, it would make transition to standards easier.
14:33:15 <jeff> David: We should characterize CGs as a generalized "several member submission".
14:33:39 <SteveZ_> Jeff: I think having a document that notes that CG do not have rules and therefore, their output is not a standard, but should be suitable for input into a standard. That is helped by the CG adopting rules for fairness and that would ease the transition to a Standards process
14:40:43 <SteveZ_> Jeff: I think most of the things on Ian's list are mostly administrative and not really useful to discuss in the Process TF. These are things the Team should be doing.
14:41:22 <SteveZ_> dsinger: We should cherrypick the topics that need discussion; e.g. the CLA question
14:41:40 <SteveZ_> Jeff: does the CLA belong here or in the PSIG
14:43:05 <SteveZ_> Jeff: we did develop the W3C Doc license and PSIG suggested applying it to orphan documents
14:43:57 <jeff> Steve: For drafting text, though, we should ask PSIG
14:44:39 <SteveZ_> ... on the question of using it for Specs (for which we want a permissive license) the AB decided we did not need to ask the PSIG if we wanted to do this. The AB just recommended adoption.
14:46:09 <jeff> q+
14:46:44 <jeff> Steve: For next week I will assemble the actions and issues we should look at.
14:46:58 <jeff> David: Who has the list of CG, WG, transition issues.
14:47:09 <jeff> Steve: Two that I know of
14:47:20 <jeff> ... different protocol for IP which may or may not be a problem
14:47:41 <jeff> ... encourage use of CGs to get things started
14:47:49 <jeff> Dave: Fairness of process
14:48:13 <dsinger> q?
14:48:31 <jeff> Steve: IP has much to do with tracking contributions: github, etc.
14:48:38 <jeff> https://www.w3.org/Member/Board/track/actions/open
14:50:07 <jeff> Jeff: Please clean up whether these are issues, and whether tracked by AB
14:50:09 <SteveZ_> Jeff: AB is stuck with two old features: actions 38 and 39 on AB list. Steve Z to check if these features moved to Process TF
14:50:13 <dsinger> issues?
14:50:31 <jeff> Steve: These seem like guide items.
14:50:52 <dsinger> issue-1?
14:50:52 <trackbot> issue-1 -- Member only mailing lists and meetings for technical discussion -- raised
14:50:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/1
14:51:39 <SteveZ_> Jeff: on June 2 would like to have a discussion on what the CG recommends on Process 2015 results
14:51:56 <dsinger> q+ to ask about process2016
14:52:02 <jeff> ack je
14:52:03 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
14:52:34 <jeff> Jeff: Steve, If AB actions 38 and 39 are done, please inform the AB.
14:52:42 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
14:52:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-w3process-minutes.html jeff
14:52:51 <jeff> ack dsi
14:52:51 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about process2016
14:53:14 <jeff> Dave: Next steps on Process2016?
14:53:14 <jeff> Steve: I will get stuff into issue tracker and we go from there.
14:53:47 <jeff> [adjourned]
14:53:54 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
14:53:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-w3process-minutes.html jeff
14:53:55 <SteveZ_> Adjourned
14:54:04 <Zakim> -dsinger
14:54:06 <Zakim> -Jeff
14:54:30 <SteveZ_> Participants: Mike Champion, Jeff Jaffe, David Singer, Steve Zilles
14:54:37 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
14:54:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
14:55:46 <SteveZ_> s/Participants/present/
14:55:53 <SteveZ_> rrsagent, make minutes
14:55:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ_
14:56:48 <Zakim> -SteveZ
14:56:49 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
14:56:49 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], SteveZ, Jeff, dsinger
15:31:55 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
15:54:12 <chaals1> chaals1 has joined #w3process
16:24:12 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
16:59:53 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
17:00:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process