15:58:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:58:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/12-w3process-irc
15:58:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:12 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:58:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
15:58:14 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:58:15 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:58:15 <trackbot> Date: 12 July 2017
15:58:29 <dsinger> agenda+ assign scribe
15:58:47 <dsinger> agenda+ assigned issues <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/assigned/*>
15:59:00 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process
15:59:01 <wseltzer> wseltzer has joined #w3process
15:59:02 <dsinger> agenda+ active issues https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc
15:59:18 <dsinger> agenda+ issue triage https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues
15:59:33 <dsinger> agenda+ next meeting time
15:59:36 <dsinger> agenda+ AOB
16:00:14 <jeff_> present+ jeff
16:01:26 <wseltzer> present+
16:02:29 <chaals> regrets+ Léonie
16:02:42 <wseltzer> present+ Mike, Virginia
16:02:57 <dsinger> present+ dsinger, jeff
16:03:08 <dsinger> present+ virginia
16:03:41 <chaals> present+
16:04:26 <jeff_> DS: Adjustments to agenda?
16:04:31 <jeff_> CMN:Wfm
16:04:35 <dsinger> zakim, next agendum
16:04:35 <Zakim> agendum 1. "assign scribe" taken up [from dsinger]
16:04:42 <wseltzer> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2017Jul/0003.html
16:04:44 <dsinger> zakim, next agendum
16:04:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, dsinger
16:04:51 <chaals> zakim, close item 1
16:04:51 <Zakim> agendum 1, assign scribe, closed
16:04:52 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:04:52 <Zakim> 2. assigned issues <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/assigned/*> [from dsinger]
16:05:00 <chaals> zakim, take up item 2
16:05:00 <Zakim> agendum 2. "assigned issues <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/assigned/*>" taken up [from dsinger]
16:05:14 <jeff_> DS: Updates on assigned issues?
16:05:39 <jeff_> CMN: I am assigned many
16:05:46 <jeff_> ... I have looked at some of them
16:05:56 <jeff_> ...  I plan to implement our decisions
16:06:26 <jeff_> CMN: 44 is trivial
16:07:26 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aassigned
16:07:31 <jeff_> CMN: #30 could depend on #23
16:07:43 <jeff_> DS: No, any participant must do CEPC
16:07:50 <jeff_> [jeff agrees with ds]
16:08:01 <jeff_> DS: Is there a consensus to add the reference?
16:08:04 <jeff_> CMN: Yes
16:08:07 <jeff_> JJ: +1
16:08:07 <wseltzer> +1
16:08:26 <jeff_> DS: Leave it to Chaals
16:08:38 <chaals> RESOLUTION: We will add a requirement to abide by CEPC
16:08:39 <jeff_> MC: Do we normally point to moving targets?
16:08:42 <jeff_> q+
16:08:50 <jeff_> CMN: We do the same with pubrules
16:08:56 <jeff_> MC: OK with it
16:09:19 <jeff_> DS: Can we leave to Chaals to wordsmith?
16:10:10 <jeff_> Jeff: Where in the process document does this go?
16:10:22 <jeff_> CMN: Rough idea - where we talk about participation
16:10:34 <jeff_> ... also #23 in a similar fashion
16:11:18 <jeff_> Jeff: Milestone?
16:11:23 <jeff_> CMN: Yes we should assign them.
16:11:25 <dsinger> I believe it goes in 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria
16:11:33 <jeff_> DS: ^^
16:12:18 <jeff_> DS: #29 left with editor
16:12:19 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/23
16:12:21 <jeff_> CMN: Yes
16:13:24 <jeff_> DS: #23 has proposed text.  We can leave to the editor to issue pull request
16:13:32 <jeff_> MC: When did we agree to this?
16:13:37 <jeff_> DS: Months ago
16:14:03 <jeff_> Virginia: What is "xyz?"
16:14:20 <jeff_> DS: General participation requirements (3.1) such as code of ethics
16:14:31 <jeff_> Virginia: Can we see final version of language before we agree?
16:14:40 <jeff_> DS: Yes, we need it for the next call
16:15:25 <jeff_> DS: #15.  Mike?
16:15:29 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/15
16:15:38 <jeff_> Mike: I don't think it is worth picking up.
16:16:05 <jeff_> DS: Propose to close
16:16:07 <wseltzer> +1 to close without action
16:16:13 <jeff_> MC: That's my rec.
16:16:21 <jeff_> DS: Disagree
16:16:44 <jeff_> CMN: Procedurally there may be poor change tracing, but that is not a process change
16:16:47 <jeff_> DS: Please note that.
16:17:01 <chaals> [I made a PR to close #44]
16:17:06 <jeff_> DS: #11 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/11
16:17:13 <jeff_> DS: CMN?
16:17:13 <wseltzer> q+
16:17:19 <jeff_> q-
16:17:31 <wseltzer> q-
16:17:39 <jeff_> WS: Change a SHOULD to a MUST
16:17:46 <jeff_> MC: Worth doing?
16:17:51 <jeff_> CMN: Yes.
16:18:08 <jeff_> ... Something from HH and JJ and not the rest of the team needs to be documented
16:18:17 <jeff_> DS: We'll leave that to CMN
16:18:29 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/8
16:18:43 <jeff_> DS: #8 - https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/8
16:18:53 <jeff_> CMN: No update, but straightforward.
16:18:56 <jeff_> DS: Next meeting?
16:18:59 <jeff_> CMN: Yes.
16:19:16 <jeff_> DS: #3 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/3
16:19:32 <jeff_> CMN: Actual work to deal with meetings and workshops which are scattered in document
16:19:39 <jeff_> ... editorial simplification
16:19:45 <jeff_> DS: Leave it with you.
16:20:00 <jeff_> MC: Agree
16:20:08 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2
16:20:08 <jeff_> DS #2 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2
16:20:22 <jeff_> ... LW agrees with CMN proposal in email
16:20:33 <jeff_> Virginia: I added a comment about patent license commitment
16:20:39 <jeff_> ... need PSIG input
16:20:58 <wseltzer> q+
16:21:03 <jeff_> ... concerned about it - are each WG responsible for commitments for entire deliverable or their part
16:21:08 <jeff_> ... difficulty in tracking that
16:21:09 <chaals> q+
16:21:13 <jeff_> ... need to talk to PSIG
16:21:21 <jeff_> ack ws
16:21:33 <chaals> [+1 to Wendy]
16:21:35 <chaals> q-
16:21:36 <jeff_> WS: In practice we've never had a contribution based commitment
16:21:42 <jeff_> ... so it is entire deliverable
16:21:47 <jeff_> ... we can bring to PSIG
16:22:07 <jeff_> DS: As if each WG has it in their charter
16:22:12 <jeff_> Virginia: Run it by PSIG
16:22:16 <jeff_> DS: Can you do that?
16:22:40 <jeff_> Virginia: Maybe not by next call
16:22:55 <jeff_> CMN: August 7.  Also, no mechanism for partial commitment.
16:23:13 <jeff_> Virginia: But if you are not involved in material because you are in the other WG
16:23:30 <jeff_> CMN: Yes.  SOP is that each WG publishes as if it is the work of that WG
16:23:31 <dsinger> q?
16:23:37 <jeff_> ... so committed to entire spec
16:23:46 <jeff_> Virginia: Where in the PP?
16:24:05 <jeff_> CMN: Doesn't.  Each WG merely processes each spec as if in that WG
16:24:21 <jeff_> Virginia: Is entire spec in each WG charter
16:24:24 <jeff_> CMN: Yes.
16:24:30 <jeff_> DS: Practically this is required.
16:24:46 <jeff_> ... IPR entanglement
16:24:56 <jeff_> ... either on the hook or not
16:25:07 <jeff_> Virginia: Still PSIG should review
16:25:11 <jeff_> DS: Yup.
16:25:17 <wseltzer> q+
16:25:25 <jeff_> Virginia: I'll do that.
16:25:33 <wseltzer> q-
16:25:34 <jeff_> ... what about #13.
16:25:46 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/13
16:25:49 <jeff_> ... I proposed language
16:26:40 <jeff_> DS: Comments on this language?
16:26:44 <wseltzer> [[The W3C Director may negotiate and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)  Liaison Agreement with another organization. For purposes of this section, a “Liaison Agreement” is a formal written and binding agreement signed by W3C and another party to establish terms such as the framework of a liaison, the parties’ rights and obligations, ownership of deliverables, intellectual property rights,
16:26:50 <wseltzer> and confidentiality.  A Liaison Agreement may ...
16:26:52 <wseltzer> ... have a different name, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a Letter of Intent (LOI), or another type of document or agreement, while still qualifying as a Liaison Agreement under this section.  Before signing the Liaison AgreementMoU, the Team must inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make the Liaison Agreement MoU available for Advisory Committee review; Advisory Commit
16:26:58 <wseltzer> tee representatives may initiate an Advisory ...
16:27:01 <wseltzer> ... Committee Appeal of the decision to sign the Liaison AgreementMoU. Once approved, a Liaison Agreement should be made public.
16:27:04 <wseltzer> The Team may inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign non-binding MOUs or LOIs.
16:27:07 <wseltzer> Information about W3C liaisons with other organizations and the guidelines W3C follows when creating a liaison [PUB28] is available on the Web.]]
16:27:10 <wseltzer> sorry, the redline didn't come through
16:27:16 <jeff_> ... personally I think it is OK
16:27:22 <jeff_> ... please review
16:27:31 <jeff_> CMN: Can I have time offline?
16:27:38 <wseltzer> q+
16:27:41 <jeff_> DS: Next meeting to review.
16:27:50 <jeff_> ... CMN can you make it as a pull request
16:28:00 <jeff_> CMN: No, it is a word document
16:28:08 <jeff_> DS: I will get the text to you
16:28:33 <jeff_> WS: Concern that "liaison agreement" term might clash with our informal liaisons
16:28:38 <jeff_> Virginia: We can modify.
16:28:57 <jeff_> WS: Otherwise looks good.
16:29:05 <jeff_> DS: Other assigned issues?
16:29:52 <jeff_> CMN: Virginia, you need to show up in github as a collaborator or we cannot formally assign the issue
16:30:14 <jeff_> DS: Active issues
16:30:22 <dsinger> zakim, close 2
16:30:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close 2', dsinger
16:30:30 <dsinger> zakim, close this item
16:30:30 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, dsinger
16:30:33 <chaals> zakim, close item 2
16:30:33 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, chaals
16:30:34 <dsinger> q?
16:30:37 <wseltzer> q-
16:30:44 <chaals> zakim, close item 2
16:30:44 <Zakim> agendum 2, assigned issues <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/assigned/*>, closed
16:30:44 <dsinger> zakim, close this item
16:30:46 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:30:46 <Zakim> 3. active issues https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc [from dsinger]
16:30:46 <Zakim> I do not know what agendum had been taken up, dsinger
16:31:10 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc
16:31:40 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/36
16:31:44 <jeff_> #36 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/36
16:31:58 <jeff_> CMN: We are working on obsoleting old specs in Web Platform
16:32:09 <jeff_> ... editorial wording is not unreasonable
16:32:16 <jeff_> ... either agree or drop
16:32:23 <jeff_> DS: I've put in a proposal
16:32:34 <jeff_> [DS reads proposal]
16:32:51 <chaals> s/drop/drop - because it doesn't seem to make a material difference either way/
16:33:11 <jeff_> DS: Can we assign to editor
16:33:20 <jeff_> CMN: Sure, but he will probably close the issue
16:33:25 <jeff_> DS: But we need process changes
16:33:35 <jeff_> CMN: Not the conclusion of Web Platform
16:34:01 <jeff_> DS: I'll leave it with you.
16:34:29 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/9
16:34:36 <jeff_> q+
16:35:16 <jeff_> DS: Could this practically happen
16:35:22 <jeff_> JJ: I don't see why not.
16:35:33 <jeff_> DS: Let's not take this up.  Not practical at the moment.
16:35:46 <jeff_> Virginia: I agree to leave it unless a pressing problem.
16:36:01 <jeff_> DS: CMN?
16:36:15 <jeff_> CMN: I think the problem is the inverse of what Virginia suggested
16:37:06 <jeff_> ... we don't clearly find a related member and their IPR
16:37:15 <dsinger> q+
16:37:35 <jeff_> ... can be solved, but little transparency
16:38:04 <jeff_> Virginia: How do we find out who that rep is working for?
16:38:16 <jeff_> ... as a small co they may not want us to know
16:38:23 <jeff_> CMN: Process reqt that they tell us
16:38:28 <jeff_> ... people are not secretive
16:38:39 <jeff_> ... but we can't stop misbehavior
16:38:46 <dsinger> q?
16:38:56 <jeff_> ... we can try to constrain them from doing so
16:39:30 <jeff_> MC: We can ask the companies that appoint the dual-hatted person to join the WG
16:39:35 <jeff_> ... team can do it - not in process doc
16:40:25 <jeff_> CMN: Team can ask company; or the company can remember to exclude - but it is hard if we constrain the number of people that can represent
16:40:29 <dsinger> ack j
16:40:43 <chaals> s/we can/at the moment we apparently/
16:40:46 <virginia> virginia has joined #w3process
16:40:47 <dsinger> ack d
16:40:49 <jeff_> JJ: Not high priority
16:40:50 <jeff_> q+
16:41:09 <virginia> q+
16:41:23 <jeff_> DS: The amount of work in infrastructure for this scenario - not necessarily worth it
16:41:40 <jeff_> ... can also have leakiness of one company "representing" another
16:41:43 <jeff_> ... we need to trust
16:41:45 <jeff_> q- later
16:41:52 <jeff_> ... not a process issue
16:41:59 <dsinger> q?
16:42:03 <jeff_> CMN: But hard to do right thing
16:42:06 <dsinger> ack vi
16:42:17 <jeff_> [Jeff agrees with what David said]
16:42:35 <jeff_> Virginia: Can we just add that they can't represent two members without approval
16:42:40 <jeff_> ... that would force them to ask
16:42:58 <jeff_> ... in most cases that would be OK
16:43:08 <dsinger> ack j
16:43:11 <jeff_> ... in bizarre cases we would look into it.
16:43:56 <virginia> q+
16:44:00 <dsinger> q+
16:44:14 <dsinger> ack v
16:44:27 <jeff_> Jeff: We can register "dual hats", but don't ask the team to judge what is bizarre.
16:44:49 <jeff_> Virginia: If they notify us that they are representing two members and it is not straightforward then we would ask them questions
16:44:59 <jeff_> ... if they are non-members it would be vetting.
16:45:33 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
16:45:54 <jeff_> Jeff: Still hard to implement
16:45:57 <mchampion> q?
16:46:12 <jeff_> Virginia: We are concerned about a person being a member with companies behind them giving them technology
16:46:26 <jeff_> ... no commitments from hidden companies
16:47:18 <virginia> q+
16:47:21 <jeff_> Jeff: That is a submarine patent issue unrelated to the dual hatted problem
16:47:30 <dsinger> Should we ask the team? Can two (or more) AC Reps nominate the same person to a single WG? If they do, will the participation database show that both members are in the WG? Will both members get all notifications such as Exclusion Opportunities?
16:47:31 <jeff_> DS: Feels unlikely
16:47:54 <jeff_> q+ to discuss issue #48
16:48:10 <jeff_> DS: Do we want to bother with this -seeing that it could be a lot of work?
16:48:13 <jeff_> ack ds
16:48:16 <jeff_> ack vir
16:48:30 <jeff_> Virginia: We should at least receive notice if there is a dual hat.
16:49:04 <jeff_> Jeff: That wouldn't be a bad idea
16:49:10 <jeff_> CMN: That is already in the process
16:49:17 <jeff_> DS: can we move on?
16:49:30 <jeff_> Virginia: CMN please provide that notice.
16:49:32 <jeff_> CMN: Yes
16:49:35 <jeff_> V: Tx.
16:49:50 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/48
16:50:29 <chaals> [ -> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers Related members, section 2.1.2.2 ]
16:50:42 <jeff_> Jeff: #48 could come up.
16:50:45 <jeff_> DS: Proposals?
16:50:54 <jeff_> q+
16:50:57 <dsinger> (The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes)
16:52:18 <jeff_> Jeff: Here is my view
16:52:26 <jeff_> ... if it is overturned IT IS OVERTURNED
16:53:12 <jeff_> ...  @@@ ran out of time to scribe
16:53:22 <jeff_> DS: Can you provide your views in a comment?
16:53:24 <jeff_> q+
16:53:30 <jeff_> Jeff: Yes.
16:54:02 <wseltzer> jeff: 2 big issues looked at in AB relating to Process
16:54:13 <wseltzer> ... would be useful to have at least stubs for those
16:54:28 <wseltzer> ... 1. improving errata management in W3C. Issue #5 is in active issue list
16:54:40 <chaals> q+
16:54:50 <wseltzer> ... ongoing in AB
16:54:59 <wseltzer> ... 2. new proposed selection method for TAG
16:55:07 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/4
16:55:08 <wseltzer> ... was that opened for an issue other than 31?
16:55:30 <wseltzer> dsinger: Issue 4, Role and make-up of TAG
16:55:37 <wseltzer> ... nobody assigned, but it is active
16:55:49 <wseltzer> ... AB has shared a proposal with TAG
16:56:04 <wseltzer> jeff: my pref to put 4 and 5 on agenda each month
16:56:39 <wseltzer> chaals: I propose opening specific issues on AB's proposal; will add text after TAG meeting
16:57:06 <jeff_> DS: Any others?
16:57:07 <wseltzer> dsinger: Jeff, you'll take 5; chaals will take new isseue
16:57:24 <jeff_> Virginia: Ballot outstanding for a year?  Can we fix it?
16:57:28 <jeff_> ... #34
16:57:51 <jeff_> DS: I don't like it
16:57:53 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/34
16:57:55 <wseltzer> [I don't like it either]
16:58:00 <jeff_> CMN: I just used it and I like it.
16:58:11 <jeff_> DS: We should ask the question when the material is available
16:58:15 <jeff_> Virginia: Right
16:58:21 <jeff_> CMN: I agree with the statement
16:58:35 <jeff_> ... but it is an inaccurate characterization the situation.
16:58:41 <jeff_> DS: Make it a github discussion.
16:58:46 <dsinger> zakim, close item 3
16:58:46 <Zakim> agendum 3, active issues https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc, closed
16:58:48 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:58:48 <Zakim> 4. issue triage https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues [from dsinger]
16:59:46 <jeff_> DS: I can't make the next meeting
17:00:00 <jeff_> JJ: Reschedule it
17:00:30 <jeff_> DS: I'll do a Doodle poll.  Shoot for 16th.
17:00:37 <chaals> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls Open Pull requests
17:00:58 <dsinger> Please all review the PRs
17:01:07 <jeff_> DS: Please review the pull requests ^^
17:01:13 <jeff_> ... next meeting we review text
17:01:16 <jeff_> ... AOB
17:01:25 <jeff_> Thanks.
17:01:29 <jeff_> [adjourned]
17:01:33 <jeff_> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/12-w3process-minutes.html jeff_
20:13:10 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #w3process
20:55:47 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #w3process
21:39:33 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process