16:54:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
16:54:51 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/01/10-w3process-irc
16:54:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:54:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
16:54:56 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2018
16:56:48 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process
16:58:41 <wseltzer> wseltzer has joined #w3process
17:00:01 <dsinger> regrets+ chaals
17:00:31 <wseltzer> present+
17:00:46 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
17:00:54 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
17:00:54 <Zakim> Present: wseltzer, dsinger
17:00:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see wseltzer, jeff_, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeff, dsinger, trackbot, misalias_, dbaron, cwilso, timeless
17:01:06 <wseltzer> rrsagent, pointer?
17:01:06 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2018/01/10-w3process-irc#T17-01-06
17:02:47 <jeff_> present+ call-in-user-2 (per the chair)
17:04:31 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
17:05:40 <wseltzer> present+ mchampion
17:06:13 <jeff_> scribenick: jeff
17:06:21 <jeff_> David: Natasha will edit for 6 months
17:06:30 <jeff_> ... Chaals is stepping down
17:06:41 <jeff_> ... Process CG thanks CMN for what he has done
17:06:51 <jeff_> ... after 6 months hope to rotate the editing task.
17:07:10 <wseltzer> Topic: Process 2018
17:07:19 <wseltzer> jeff_: AB has approved; Director has approved
17:07:30 <wseltzer> ... team is looking at whether we can publish as early as Feb. 1
17:08:16 <wseltzer> ... one question that came up in W3M review: how does TAG fill its newly created seat
17:08:19 <wseltzer> ... by special election?
17:08:40 <wseltzer> dsinger: that was my recollection too
17:09:36 <wseltzer> Topic: 3) Review the outgoing editor’s status and pull requests <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls> (Chaals)
17:09:49 <wseltzer> jeff_: Ralph said he'd get it done
17:10:05 <jeff_> scribenick: Jeff
17:10:20 <jeff_> David: Chaals left some pull requests pending
17:10:27 <jeff_> ... let's defer until we have Chaals
17:10:34 <jeff_> [Jeff: +1]
17:10:52 <jeff_> Virginia: +1
17:10:56 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Editorial%20improvements
17:11:03 <jeff_> Topic: Editorial improvements
17:11:19 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/86
17:11:23 <jeff_> David: Duplication of text - #86
17:12:16 <jeff_> [David reads #86]
17:12:22 <jeff_> ... how do we deal with this?
17:12:32 <jeff_> Virginia: Nice to have definitions in one place; not necessary
17:12:40 <dsinger> ask the editor to do something clean and satisfies Leonie’s and others’ needs
17:12:41 <jeff_> David: OK, we'll ask the editor
17:12:43 <jeff_> q+
17:13:14 <jeff_> ... #91 - update graphics is in process.
17:13:22 <jeff_> ... leave with editors
17:13:39 <jeff_> Virginia: as long as it doesn't change meaning.
17:13:42 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/138
17:14:20 <jeff_> ... #138 - superseded - Andreas had many comments
17:14:24 <jeff_> ... leave to editor
17:14:54 <jeff_> ... #162 - maturity levels - raised by Natasha
17:15:02 <jeff_> ... let's leave it to Natasha
17:15:10 <jeff_> ... but borders on substantive
17:15:28 <jeff_> Virginia: Good idea if it doesn't change meaning.
17:15:34 <jeff_> ack je
17:15:42 <dsinger> we confirmed the editorial tag on these 4.
17:16:35 <jeff_> Jeff: I don't think we should rotate the editor every 6 months
17:16:44 <jeff_> David: I agree.
17:17:09 <jeff_> Topic: Identify priority issues
17:17:10 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/ABProcess2019Candidate
17:17:33 <jeff_> ... AB has a list ^^
17:17:43 <jeff_> ... are we ready or does work need to be done first
17:17:59 <wseltzer> q+
17:17:59 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/5
17:18:01 <jeff_> ... Let's review in order
17:18:35 <wseltzer> q-
17:18:41 <jeff_> q+
17:18:57 <jeff_> ... me or tantek or someone should comment on this.
17:19:46 <jeff_> ack je
17:19:54 <jeff_> Jeff: I'm not sure this is a priority.
17:20:08 <jeff_> David: Yes, let's see how amended and superseded work out before we do more on these.
17:21:23 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/5 does not seem large
17:21:47 <jeff_> ... and I'll change who is assigned to this.
17:22:16 <jeff_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/7
17:22:29 <jeff_> Wendy: Let's not work on issue 7
17:22:39 <jeff_> ... team implementation issue - not process issue
17:22:49 <jeff_> David: Can you move this to a team operational issue?
17:22:52 <jeff_> Wendy: Sure.
17:23:13 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/10
17:23:20 <jeff_> David: OMG
17:23:31 <jeff_> Jeff: Let's close the issue.
17:23:38 <jeff_> Virginia: What is the question?
17:24:00 <jeff_> David: Hosts have AC reps; thus do they have voting rights?
17:24:19 <jeff_> Mike: A host voted to override the Director on EME
17:24:33 <jeff_> Jeff: They actually withdrew that vote.
17:24:39 <jeff_> Mike: But still, we could clarify.
17:25:11 <jeff_> David: Is this urgent?
17:25:22 <jeff_> ... No?, let's not be anal.
17:25:31 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/17
17:25:56 <jeff_> David: BGs and CGs are on the side but we are using them more.
17:26:08 <jeff_> Mike: In 2011 it was an experiment.
17:26:27 <jeff_> ... there was an understanding that if it worked - it would be incorporated into the process
17:26:38 <jeff_> ... now a large proportion of early stage work happens there
17:26:48 <jeff_> ... should be done; not necessarily this year.
17:26:49 <wseltzer> q+
17:26:59 <jeff_> David: A lot of work.  Should be done at some point.
17:27:02 <jeff_> ack wse
17:27:10 <jeff_> Wendy: Should not be in the process document
17:27:16 <jeff_> ... open to non-members
17:27:23 <jeff_> ... not tied to member agreement
17:27:24 <dsinger> q?
17:27:31 <jeff_> ... so benefit of being distinct.
17:27:39 <jeff_> Mike: Good point too.
17:28:06 <jeff_> David: Can a director dismiss someone from a CG?
17:28:07 <tink> tink has joined #w3process
17:28:19 <jeff_> ... we can maybe have a reference?
17:28:23 <tink> present+ Léonie
17:28:29 <jeff_> Mike: Makes sense.  Point to their existence.
17:28:34 <jeff_> ... but outside of process.
17:28:46 <jeff_> q+
17:29:25 <jeff_> ack je
17:29:48 <jeff_> Jeff: Defer #17 (CGs) until we figure out #79 (LS)
17:30:00 <jeff_> David: I think we should do something about CGs
17:30:28 <jeff_> ... let's apply the label Process2019Candidate
17:30:31 <jeff_> +1
17:30:42 <jeff_> ... I'll assign it to myself (Singer)
17:30:58 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/19
17:31:25 <jeff_> ... David: Virginia sees overlap with #67.
17:31:35 <wseltzer> q_
17:31:39 <wseltzer> q+
17:31:58 <jeff_> Wendy: A member submission is a distinct thing that happens rarely.
17:32:00 <jeff_> ack sw
17:32:04 <jeff_> ack ws
17:32:21 <jeff_> ... team practice is to get an IPR commitment from every contributor.
17:32:26 <jeff_> q+
17:33:22 <jeff_> ack je
17:33:56 <jeff_> Jeff: For EPUB we received sufficient commitments, but not 100% for anyone who was ever in IDPF
17:34:09 <jeff_> David: Can we combine #19 and #67
17:34:17 <jeff_> Wendy: No.  They are different
17:34:29 <jeff_> ... but also we don't need to add anything to process (for either)
17:34:36 <wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Submission
17:35:20 <jeff_> Wendy: 10.1.2 talks about IPR.
17:35:42 <wseltzer> [[The request must satisfy the Member Submission licensing commitments of section 3.3 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33].]]
17:36:06 <dsinger> “all Submitters and any others who provide patent licenses associated with the submitted document must indicate whether or not each entity (Submitters and other licensors) will offer a license according to the W3C RF licensing requirements “ (PP) 3.3
17:36:28 <jeff_> David: Seems covered.
17:36:35 <jeff_> ... can we close #19?
17:36:35 <wseltzer> +1 to close
17:37:10 <jeff_> +1 to close
17:37:19 <tink> +1 to close
17:37:22 <jeff_> ... I'm closing #19.
17:37:28 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24
17:38:20 <jeff_> David: Chaals tried to introduce a clearer default voting mechanism
17:38:49 <jeff_> ... but made it by member rather than by participant
17:38:55 <jeff_> ... I will look at this one.
17:39:05 <jeff_> Leonie: Is it a matter of making the text clearer?
17:39:09 <jeff_> David: I think so.
17:39:17 <jeff_> ... ultimately we will assign to Natasha.
17:39:28 <jeff_> ... I've done so.
17:39:40 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/28
17:40:20 <jeff_> David: Does anyone think this is a problem?
17:40:31 <jeff_> Leonie: Difficult to interpret unless you've been in W3C for a while.
17:41:05 <jeff_> David: I've added that point to github.
17:41:25 <jeff_> ... Let's keep the topic, without assigning anyone.
17:41:28 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/31
17:41:56 <jeff_> David: We should send this back to the AB
17:42:00 <jeff_> Mike: Fair response.
17:42:06 <jeff_> Leonie: Mike is right.
17:42:23 <jeff_> David: Policy decisions belong in AB; this is not about changing the document.
17:43:04 <jeff_> ... If we decide on a NomComm, then the CG could figure out the text for the document
17:43:15 <jeff_> Mike: This is being championed by Natasha.
17:43:21 <jeff_> Leonie: AB priority.
17:43:25 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/32
17:44:20 <jeff_> Mike: Many specs have gotten to REC because there are two proof-of-concept implementations.
17:44:32 <jeff_> ... but that doesn't mean it will be deployed.
17:45:16 <jeff_> Leonie: We should say that it needs broad acceptance in the realm that the spec applies to.
17:45:22 <jeff_> q+
17:45:39 <jeff_> ... so for accessibility it is a different group from HTML
17:46:34 <jeff_> Jeff: "broad acceptance" is a policy issue - sounds like deferring to the AB
17:46:59 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60
17:47:28 <jeff_> David: Jeff do you want this one?
17:47:41 <jeff_> ... Mike is passionate about it.
17:47:54 <jeff_> ... Let's assign the issue, but not discuss it today.
17:47:56 <jeff_> q+
17:48:04 <jeff_> q-
17:48:24 <jeff_> Mike: Let's push this issue in front of the AC.
17:48:30 <jeff_> q+
17:49:00 <jeff_> Virginia: This is an issue of policy.  What did we mean?  Should go to the AB.
17:49:13 <jeff_> Mike: The AB would not get more than 8 votes on this issue.
17:49:39 <jeff_> David: We should resolve this this year.
17:51:23 <jeff_> ack je
17:51:45 <jeff_> Jeff: We have a choice.  Either we remove the line, or we have a totally different voting mechanism.
17:52:09 <jeff_> ... If we want a new voting mechanism, let Mike propose it as such - rather than in the context of this contradiction.
17:52:16 <jeff_> David: I agree.
17:52:35 <jeff_> Leonie: Actually, Mike's new voting proposal would get more attention and clarity if he defines it as such.
17:53:00 <jeff_> David: Mike would you be willing to do that?  And we would remove the contradiction from the process.  Acceptable?
17:53:13 <jeff_> Mike: I'm ok to propose going back to the old system.
17:54:16 <jeff_> Leonie: The process spec should reflect reality.
17:54:32 <jeff_> ... (an argument which I know you appreciate)
17:54:41 <jeff_> Mike: I'm overwhelmed with your logic.
17:54:52 <jeff_> David: We agreed to remove the sentence.
17:55:04 <jeff_> ... A new issue will be raised about different voting systems.
17:55:32 <jeff_> ... I will assign Natasha to fix it.
17:55:52 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #w3process
17:55:58 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63
17:56:36 <jeff__> David: A priority?
17:56:44 <jeff__> ... I will not apply that tag.
17:56:59 <wseltzer> q+
17:57:30 <jeff__> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
17:57:40 <jeff__> David: Process should be clear that we want IPR commitments.
17:57:48 <jeff__> ... Candidate to fix this year.
17:57:52 <jeff__> q+
17:57:54 <jeff__> ack ws
17:57:57 <tink> +1 to fixing this year.
17:58:07 <jeff__> Wendy: Needs some policy
17:58:35 <jeff__> Jeff: Do we want to learn from the WHATWG
17:58:51 <wseltzer> q+
17:58:53 <jeff__> David: Issue is more narrow.  Do we want contribution agreement.
17:58:56 <jeff__> ack je
17:59:23 <jeff__> ... ASH-KNAZ helps implementation, but we need a policy.
17:59:37 <jeff__> Mike: CG CLA is excellent as a model for how to do this.
18:00:22 <jeff__> ack
18:00:23 <jeff__> ack ws
18:00:43 <jeff__> Wendy: We need to strike a balance including getting contributions and getting protection
18:00:56 <jeff__> ... an onerous process will just discourage contribution.
18:01:48 <jeff__> Jeff: Is there an example?
18:02:03 <jeff__> Wendy: In WebAuth some employer doesn't want to give commitments.
18:02:44 <wseltzer> s/some employer doesn't want to give/a contributor is having difficulty getting employer/
18:03:12 <jeff__> rrsagent, make minutes
18:03:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/01/10-w3process-minutes.html jeff__
18:03:23 <jeff__> David: [adjourn]
18:03:24 <dsinger> we resume in Feb with #79, 117 and 118
18:03:30 <dsinger> thx
18:11:05 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
18:58:58 <dsinger_> dsinger_ has joined #w3process
19:12:39 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #w3process
19:20:14 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process
19:25:09 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
19:36:19 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
20:26:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
20:48:27 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
22:39:17 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process