DS: Adjustments to agenda?

CMN: Wfm

assign scribe

assigned issues <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/assigned/*>

DS: Updates on assigned issues?

CMN: I am assigned many
... I have looked at some of them
... I plan to implement our decisions
... 44 is trivial

<wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aassigned

CMN: #30 could depend on #23

DS: No, any participant must do CEPC

[jeff agrees with ds]

DS: Is there a consensus to add the reference?

CMN: Yes

JJ: +1

<wseltzer> +1

DS: Leave it to Chaals

RESOLUTION: We will add a requirement to abide by CEPC

MC: Do we normally point to moving targets?

CMN: We do the same with pubrules

MC: OK with it

DS: Can we leave to Chaals to wordsmith?

Jeff: Where in the process document does this go?

CMN: Rough idea - where we talk about participation
... also #23 in a similar fashion

Jeff: Milestone?

CMN: Yes we should assign them.

<dsinger> I believe it goes in 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria

DS: ^^
... #29 left with editor

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/23

CMN: Yes

DS: #23 has proposed text. We can leave to the editor to issue pull request

MC: When did we agree to this?

DS: Months ago

Virginia: What is "xyz?"

DS: General participation requirements (3.1) such as code of ethics

Virginia: Can we see final version of language before we agree?

DS: Yes, we need it for the next call
... #15. Mike?

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/15

Mike: I don't think it is worth picking up.

DS: Propose to close

<wseltzer> +1 to close without action

MC: That's my rec.

DS: Disagree

CMN: Procedurally there may be poor change tracing, but that is not a process change

DS: Please note that.

<chaals> [I made a PR to close #44]

DS: #11 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/11
... CMN?

WS: Change a SHOULD to a MUST

MC: Worth doing?

CMN: Yes.
... Something from HH and JJ and not the rest of the team needs to be documented

DS: We'll leave that to CMN

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/8

DS: #8 - https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/8

CMN: No update, but straightforward.

DS: Next meeting?

CMN: Yes.

DS: #3 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/3

CMN: Actual work to deal with meetings and workshops which are scattered in document
... editorial simplification

DS: Leave it with you.

MC: Agree

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2

DS #2 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2

scribe: LW agrees with CMN proposal in email

Virginia: I added a comment about patent license commitment
... need PSIG input
... concerned about it - are each WG responsible for commitments for entire deliverable or their part
... difficulty in tracking that
... need to talk to PSIG

<chaals> [+1 to Wendy]

WS: In practice we've never had a contribution based commitment
... so it is entire deliverable
... we can bring to PSIG

DS: As if each WG has it in their charter

Virginia: Run it by PSIG

DS: Can you do that?

Virginia: Maybe not by next call

CMN: August 7. Also, no mechanism for partial commitment.

Virginia: But if you are not involved in material because you are in the other WG

CMN: Yes. SOP is that each WG publishes as if it is the work of that WG
... so committed to entire spec

Virginia: Where in the PP?

CMN: Doesn't. Each WG merely processes each spec as if in that WG

Virginia: Is entire spec in each WG charter

CMN: Yes.

DS: Practically this is required.
... IPR entanglement
... either on the hook or not

Virginia: Still PSIG should review

DS: Yup.

Virginia: I'll do that.
... what about #13.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/13

Virginia: I proposed language

DS: Comments on this language?

<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,

<wseltzer> and confidentiality. A Liaison Agreement may ...

<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

<wseltzer> tee representatives may initiate an Advisory ...

<wseltzer> ... Committee Appeal of the decision to sign the Liaison AgreementMoU. Once approved, a Liaison Agreement should be made public.

<wseltzer> The Team may inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign non-binding MOUs or LOIs.

<wseltzer> Information about W3C liaisons with other organizations and the guidelines W3C follows when creating a liaison [PUB28] is available on the Web.]]

<wseltzer> sorry, the redline didn't come through

DS: personally I think it is OK
... please review

CMN: Can I have time offline?

DS: Next meeting to review.
... CMN can you make it as a pull request

CMN: No, it is a word document

DS: I will get the text to you

WS: Concern that "liaison agreement" term might clash with our informal liaisons

Virginia: We can modify.

WS: Otherwise looks good.

DS: Other assigned issues?

CMN: Virginia, you need to show up in github as a collaborator or we cannot formally assign the issue

DS: Active issues

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/36

#36 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/36

CMN: We are working on obsoleting old specs in Web Platform
... editorial wording is not unreasonable
... either agree or drop - because it doesn't seem to make a material difference either way

DS: I've put in a proposal

[DS reads proposal]

DS: Can we assign to editor

CMN: Sure, but he will probably close the issue

DS: But we need process changes

CMN: Not the conclusion of Web Platform

DS: I'll leave it with you.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/9

DS: Could this practically happen

JJ: I don't see why not.

DS: Let's not take this up. Not practical at the moment.

Virginia: I agree to leave it unless a pressing problem.

DS: CMN?

CMN: I think the problem is the inverse of what Virginia suggested
... we don't clearly find a related member and their IPR
... can be solved, but little transparency

Virginia: How do we find out who that rep is working for?
... as a small co they may not want us to know

CMN: Process reqt that they tell us
... people are not secretive
... but we can't stop misbehavior
... at the moment we apparently try to constrain them from doing so

MC: We can ask the companies that appoint the dual-hatted person to join the WG
... team can do it - not in process doc

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

JJ: Not high priority

DS: The amount of work in infrastructure for this scenario - not necessarily worth it
... can also have leakiness of one company "representing" another
... we need to trust
... not a process issue

CMN: But hard to do right thing

[Jeff agrees with what David said]

Virginia: Can we just add that they can't represent two members without approval
... that would force them to ask
... in most cases that would be OK
... in bizarre cases we would look into it.

Jeff: We can register "dual hats", but don't ask the team to judge what is bizarre.

Virginia: If they notify us that they are representing two members and it is not straightforward then we would ask them questions
... if they are non-members it would be vetting.

Jeff: Still hard to implement

Virginia: We are concerned about a person being a member with companies behind them giving them technology
... no commitments from hidden companies

Jeff: That is a submarine patent issue unrelated to the dual hatted problem

<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?

DS: Feels unlikely
... Do we want to bother with this -seeing that it could be a lot of work?

Virginia: We should at least receive notice if there is a dual hat.

Jeff: That wouldn't be a bad idea

CMN: That is already in the process

DS: can we move on?

Virginia: CMN please provide that notice.

CMN: Yes

V: Tx.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/48

<chaals> [ Related members, section 2.1.2.2 ]

Jeff: #48 could come up.

DS: Proposals?

<dsinger> (The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes)

Jeff: Here is my view
... if it is overturned IT IS OVERTURNED
... @@@ ran out of time to scribe

DS: Can you provide your views in a comment?

Jeff: Yes.

<wseltzer> jeff: 2 big issues looked at in AB relating to Process

<wseltzer> ... would be useful to have at least stubs for those

<wseltzer> ... 1. improving errata management in W3C. Issue #5 is in active issue list

<wseltzer> ... ongoing in AB

<wseltzer> ... 2. new proposed selection method for TAG

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/4

<wseltzer> ... was that opened for an issue other than 31?

<wseltzer> dsinger: Issue 4, Role and make-up of TAG

<wseltzer> ... nobody assigned, but it is active

<wseltzer> ... AB has shared a proposal with TAG

<wseltzer> jeff: my pref to put 4 and 5 on agenda each month

<wseltzer> chaals: I propose opening specific issues on AB's proposal; will add text after TAG meeting

DS: Any others?

<wseltzer> dsinger: Jeff, you'll take 5; chaals will take new isseue

Virginia: Ballot outstanding for a year? Can we fix it?
... #34

DS: I don't like it

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/34

<wseltzer> [I don't like it either]

CMN: I just used it and I like it.

DS: We should ask the question when the material is available

Virginia: Right

CMN: I agree with the statement
... but it is an inaccurate characterization the situation.

DS: Make it a github discussion.
... I can't make the next meeting

JJ: Reschedule it

DS: I'll do a Doodle poll. Shoot for 16th.

<chaals> Open Pull requests

<dsinger> Please all review the PRs

DS: Please review the pull requests ^^
... next meeting we review text
... AOB

Thanks.

[adjourned]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/drop/drop - because it doesn't seem to make a material difference either way/
Succeeded: s/we can/at the moment we apparently/
Present: jeff wseltzer Mike Virginia dsinger chaals
Regrets: Léonie
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jeff_
Inferring Scribes: jeff_
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2017Jul/0003.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 12 Jul 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/12-w3process-minutes.html
People with action items: