IRC log of w3process on 2018-01-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #w3process
16:54:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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]
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 <> (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]
17:11:03 [jeff_]
Topic: Editorial improvements
17:11:19 [dsinger]
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_]
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]
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]
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]
17:17:59 [dsinger]
17:18:01 [jeff_]
... Let's review in order
17:18:35 [wseltzer]
17:18:41 [jeff_]
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] does not seem large
17:21:47 [jeff_]
... and I'll change who is assigned to this.
17:22:16 [jeff_]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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_]
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_]
17:30:42 [jeff_]
... I'll assign it to myself (Singer)
17:30:58 [dsinger]
17:31:25 [jeff_]
... David: Virginia sees overlap with #67.
17:31:35 [wseltzer]
17:31:39 [wseltzer]
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_]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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_]
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]
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_]
17:48:04 [jeff_]
17:48:24 [jeff_]
Mike: Let's push this issue in front of the AC.
17:48:30 [jeff_]
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]
17:56:36 [jeff__]
David: A priority?
17:56:44 [jeff__]
... I will not apply that tag.
17:56:59 [wseltzer]
17:57:30 [jeff__]
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__]
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]
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__]
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 jeff__
18:03:23 [jeff__]
David: [adjourn]
18:03:24 [dsinger]
we resume in Feb with #79, 117 and 118
18:03:30 [dsinger]
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