16:01:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
16:01:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/13-w3process-irc
16:01:16 <dsinger> dsinger has changed the topic to: REVISED webex and agenda at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2017Sep/0005.html
16:01:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
16:02:13 <chaals> present+
16:02:21 <wseltzer> present+
16:02:22 <tink> tink has joined #w3process
16:02:25 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
16:02:32 <jeff__> present+ jeff
16:02:34 <wseltzer> present+ mchampion
16:04:19 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
16:05:51 <chaals> agenda?
16:06:12 <wseltzer> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2017Sep/0005.html
16:06:53 <wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
16:07:22 <wseltzer> present+ Virginia
16:07:41 <wseltzer> dsinger: agenda-bashing?
16:07:45 <wseltzer> topic: 2) Bulk confirmation of Consensus that these are addressed as requested and can be closed. I do not intend to go one by one here unless requested.
16:08:10 <wseltzer> dsinger: we're looking for consensus in process CG that we have something good enough to send to the AC for comments
16:08:23 <jeff__> q+
16:08:25 <wseltzer> ... current thinking, addresses issues
16:08:30 <wseltzer> ... not perfection yet
16:08:31 <wseltzer> ack jeff__
16:08:57 <wseltzer> jeff__: and share with AB a week from Thurs before sharing with AC
16:09:35 <wseltzer> dsinger: a bunch of editorial stuff
16:09:46 <wseltzer> ... or substantive and addressed
16:09:53 <wseltzer> ... [as in agenda]
16:10:09 <wseltzer> ... if you don't speak up, your silence will be taken as approval
16:10:27 <chaals> [I am happy with all of those]
16:10:45 <wseltzer> virginia: #13 language differs substantially from what I submitted. Why?
16:10:53 <wseltzer> ... it has lots of vague references
16:11:16 <chaals> q+
16:11:26 <wseltzer> dsinger: it's in the gh issue
16:11:41 <wseltzer> virginia: I'll send suggested changes
16:11:54 <wseltzer> ... clarifying references
16:11:58 <chaals> q-
16:12:29 <wseltzer> virginia: Q about 26
16:12:40 <chaals> s/vague references/pronouns with unclear referents/
16:12:41 <wseltzer> ... is "affiliate" being defined?
16:12:55 <wseltzer> dsinger: no, we removed the mention of Affiliates; it's just a term the team uses
16:13:11 <jeff__> q+
16:13:47 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/13
16:14:04 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20
16:14:05 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=label%3AProcess2018Candidate%20
16:14:43 <wseltzer> Topic: Minor Discussion
16:15:05 <wseltzer> q+
16:15:12 <mchampion> q+
16:15:18 <dsinger> q?
16:15:23 <dsinger> ack j
16:15:32 <chaals> [prefer the updated amended rec defn. But likely to suggest a minor tweak still]
16:15:45 <wseltzer> q+ jeff
16:15:47 <dsinger> ack ws
16:16:08 <chaals> [As noted in the issue I think we can leave the other pieces as practice rather than putting them in the process]
16:16:10 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/93/files
16:16:47 <dsinger> <dd>An <dfn id="rec-amended">Amended Recommendation</dfn> is a Recommendation that is amended to include <a href="#correction-classes">substantive
16:16:48 <dsinger>               changes that do not add new features</a>, and is produced by the W3C at a time when the Recommendation does not fit
16:16:48 <dsinger>               within the charter of any active Working Group.</dd>
16:17:35 <jeff__> q+
16:17:39 <jeff__> q-
16:18:23 <chaals> q+ to agree with Wendy about the concern, and say I think we should ask the AC to consider this question explicitly
16:19:31 <wseltzer> wseltzer: we need to run this change by PLH to see that it still meets his maintenance needs
16:19:48 <wseltzer> virginia: we feel strongly that new features need new exclusion opportunities
16:20:16 <wseltzer> dsinger: We need a tool for AC to say "this is a new feature, it needs a WG"
16:20:17 <dsinger> (I am fine with making this listed as part of AC discussion)
16:20:35 <dsinger> q?
16:20:38 <wseltzer> ack mch
16:20:41 <dsinger> ack mc
16:21:16 <wseltzer> mchampion: we need to be explicit that this is not for changes
16:21:35 <dsinger> q?
16:21:39 <dsinger> ack j
16:21:58 <wseltzer> jeff__: Agreed that Amended Recs are not for new features
16:22:30 <virginia> virginia has joined #w3process
16:22:51 <wseltzer> ... but I'm not seeing the changes concretely
16:23:09 <wseltzer> dsinger: problem that the originally proposed text merely linked to "substantive changes"
16:23:42 <wseltzer> ... and failed to exclude new features
16:24:39 <dsinger> q?
16:24:42 <dsinger> ack ch
16:24:42 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to agree with Wendy about the concern, and say I think we should ask the AC to consider this question explicitly
16:24:46 <wseltzer> ack ch
16:24:59 <wseltzer> chaals: I think we should put through the text that's there, highlight the issue for the AC
16:25:28 <wseltzer> ... I think allowing W3C to add new features is a big thing, AC should discuss
16:26:25 <wseltzer> wseltzer: I was hoping to get PLH's review.
16:27:08 <wseltzer> dsinger: #30
16:27:10 <wseltzer> chaals: done
16:27:17 <wseltzer> dsinger: #29
16:28:06 <wseltzer> ... leaving it with the editor
16:28:17 <wseltzer> Topic: Agendum 3
16:28:22 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/23
16:28:38 <wseltzer> dsinger: #23 Director can dismiss a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?
16:28:44 <wseltzer> chaals: I think we're close
16:29:04 <dsinger> q?
16:29:21 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24
16:30:11 <wseltzer> dsinger: 24
16:30:21 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24
16:30:54 <wseltzer> mchampion: it's worth discussing; not critical to resolve
16:31:29 <wseltzer> chaals: setting a basic default
16:32:26 <wseltzer> chaals: proposed change is by default the chair must write down formal objections, must give notice of the vote (async)
16:32:56 <dsinger> q?
16:33:59 <chaals> s/(async)/and allow async voting
16:34:16 <wseltzer> dsinger: #33, 60-day language
16:35:04 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/33
16:35:30 <wseltzer> jeff__: I'd like to resolve this
16:35:36 <wseltzer> dsinger: I think we're there
16:35:40 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/34
16:35:45 <wseltzer> dsinger: #34
16:35:46 <dsinger> take to AC, discuss
16:36:17 <wseltzer> chaals: where the discussion is going, looks as though formal review will open at PR; CR announcement should encourage input
16:36:42 <wseltzer> dsinger: e.g., I wouldn't agree to this as a PR
16:37:06 <wseltzer> chaals: yes, tell us at CR, if this is a non-starter
16:37:43 <wseltzer> dsinger: #48, appeals
16:37:52 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/48
16:38:17 <wseltzer> dsinger: I prepared a PR
16:38:23 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/77
16:38:46 <wseltzer> dsinger: take to the AC two questions of simple majority or supermajority, qualifiecaoitn to vote
16:38:55 <wseltzer> s/qualifiecaoitn/qualification/
16:39:11 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/52
16:39:27 <wseltzer> dsinger: #52
16:40:18 <wseltzer> ... any more discussion?
16:40:31 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63
16:40:36 <wseltzer> dsinger: #63
16:40:52 <wseltzer> chaals: PR 39
16:41:07 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/39
16:41:28 <wseltzer> chaals: PR was that team can request public review of charter
16:41:29 <wseltzer> q+
16:41:47 <wseltzer> ... I've said please don't
16:42:13 <wseltzer> ... believe team does this anyway, because it's not forbidden by process
16:42:47 <dsinger> q?
16:42:49 <wseltzer> ... AC rep can say what they like about public document, in public
16:42:59 <chaals> scribe: chaals
16:43:10 <chaals> CMN: Hear encouragment that it is usefuil to have the non-public channels
16:43:12 <chaals> q+
16:43:23 <chaals> ... we are draftong charters in public
16:43:23 <dsinger> ack ws
16:43:26 <chaals> s/CMN/WS/
16:43:46 <dsinger> question: when a charter is sent to the AC for formal review, is it publicly visible or not?
16:43:59 <chaals> ... it is helpful to facilitate this. I think the question should remain open, and process shouyld acknowledge any of those channels might be appropriate for feedback.
16:44:09 <chaals> DS: Is a charter visible when it is sent for review?
16:44:15 <chaals> WS: Our practice is yes.
16:44:19 <wseltzer> wseltzer: our practice is for charters sent to the AC to be public
16:44:33 <dsinger> q?
16:44:33 <chaals> DS: Allowing public comment on a non-public document would be mad. Not sure we are reaching consensus...
16:44:49 <chaals> VF: What is the objective in making review public?
16:45:22 <chaals> DS: Change is to allow an AC member to make their own comment public. Concern is we are exposing internal business, and that quoted comments may be publishing somethig that should be kept in confidence.
16:45:33 <chaals> VF: Why make those comments public?
16:45:35 <chaals> q?
16:45:43 <tink> present+
16:46:09 <chaals> WS: Some members have their internal discussion in a public environment
16:46:28 <chaals> ... so why not let them point to those in W3C space?
16:46:40 <chaals> VF: Is this for more than just 1 member?
16:46:42 <chaals> q?
16:47:10 <chaals> WS: Team have been noting that it would be helpful for them to be able to point to the public dialogue to explain themselves.
16:47:20 <chaals> DS: And part of a general trend toward openness.
16:47:30 <chaals> DS: Can live with public comments if the charter is public.
16:47:52 <chaals> ... and trust that AC reps know how to keep confidences.
16:48:46 <chaals> VF: Envisioning a situation where the EFF takes off on some member's comment.
16:48:49 <chaals> DS: Where are we up to?
16:48:57 <tink> q+
16:49:11 <dsinger> are we going to formalize in the process that the team can allow AC members ot make their comments public?
16:49:13 <dsinger> q?
16:49:13 <chaals> scribe: wenbdy
16:49:20 <chaals> scribe: wseltzer
16:49:20 <dsinger> ack ch
16:49:33 <wseltzer> chaals: I don
16:49:46 <mchampion> agree with chaals, -1.  I don't think there's a problem here that needs to be solved in the process document
16:49:52 <wseltzer> ... I don't think we need to say "things you say can be public"
16:50:03 <wseltzer> s/I don//
16:50:50 <tink> ack me
16:51:39 <wseltzer> ... I do not support this change
16:51:47 <wseltzer> ... and I think team should not make charter reviews public
16:51:51 <dsinger> I share Chaals’ concerns about building public positions
16:52:29 <wseltzer> ... I'd like process to forbid what they're doing, actually
16:52:34 <jeff__> q+ to discuss taking this to AC discussion
16:52:38 <dsinger> q?
16:52:49 <dsinger> ack j
16:52:49 <Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to discuss taking this to AC discussion
16:52:56 <wseltzer> dsinger: we're not landing this one
16:53:12 <wseltzer> jeff__: I don't think we even need to discuss with AC
16:53:18 <wseltzer> ... hold for Process 2019
16:53:27 <dsinger> propose we ask the AB for guidance…
16:53:44 <dsinger> on #63, we ask the AB for guidance and otherwise hold to next rev.
16:53:56 <dsinger> q?
16:54:58 <wseltzer> dsinger: AB should know that Process CG thinks they're in good enough shape to send doc to AC
16:55:04 <jeff__> q+ on item #4 of David's agenda
16:55:10 <dsinger> q?
16:55:14 <wseltzer> ack j
16:55:14 <Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to comment on item #4 of David's agenda
16:55:21 <dsinger> ack j
16:55:24 <wseltzer> jeff__: subject to AB review, I agree
16:55:49 <wseltzer> ... but disagree with characterization in agendum 4
16:56:10 <wseltzer>   ... after AB approval, Jeff as chair of AB
16:56:45 <wseltzer> dsinger: so we should start drafting backgrounder in CG list, and then take it to  AB from whence it comes
16:56:55 <wseltzer> dsinger: consensus that it's time to take to AB
16:57:07 <wseltzer> Topic: next meeting
16:58:11 <wseltzer> jeff__: we could talk at the AB F2F
16:58:22 <wseltzer> ... with apologies to Virginia
16:58:51 <jeff__> q+
16:58:53 <wseltzer> dsinger: AOB?
16:59:07 <dsinger> q?
16:59:09 <dsinger> ack j
16:59:33 <wseltzer> jeff__: salute the terrific efforts of the chair and editor
16:59:44 <tink> +1 (and then some)
16:59:58 <dsinger> q?
17:00:22 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
17:00:28 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make logs public
17:00:32 <wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/13-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer
17:58:45 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
19:27:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
19:37:35 <wseltzer> Meeting: W3C Process CG
19:37:41 <wseltzer> Chair: Dsinger
19:37:46 <wseltzer> rrsaget, draft minutes
19:37:51 <wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
19:37:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/13-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer