Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

21 Feb 2018


dsinger, mchampion, jeff, Léonie, natasha
wseltzer, chaals


<dsinger> welcome everyone

<tink> scribe: Léonie

<tink> JJ: Have we understood what changes merit a new version of the process?

<tink> ... I feel there should be at least one substantial change.

<tink> DS: We hvaen't had that discussion yet.

<tink> DS: Without Chaals and Natasha, I'll defer the first two items.


<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130

<tink> DS: Agree this needs discussion.

<tink> +1

<dsinger> should we take this on as a Process issue?

<tink> JJ: Yes, I think we should take it up.

<tink> DS: Process or practice?

<tink> JJ: Not sure yet.

<tink> ... Will query that on the issue.

<tink> LW: I'll take this issue


<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/131

<tink> DS: Lots of discussion on this issue.

<tink> ... I'm not inclined to take this up.

<tink> ... The circumstances are rare.

<tink> ... Anyone disagree?

<mchampion> Not me

<jeff_> Jeff: I would prefer that we reject this issue, there does not appeal to be a groundswell for it.

<tink> JJ: Suggest we postpone rather than close.

<jeff_> +1 to tarpits

<natasha> +1


<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/137

<tink> DS: Think we should leave this open.

<tink> JJ: +1

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141


<tink> DS: This seems editorial to me.

<natasha> +1 editorial

<tink> ... I'll add the label and let the editors handle it.

<tink> JJ: People shouldn't make comments like this without proposing and alternative.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/142


<tink> MC: The AB has pushed the team to do charter reviews rather than extensions, is to provide more of an oversight function on priorities.

<tink> ... Some WAI WGS went for several years without properly rechartering themselves for example.

<tink> ... It's a balance.

<tink> ... Don't want it to be onerous, but don't want it to let WGs keep chewing up our crediility/resources.

<tink> DS: This requester seems to be suggesting we move in the opposite direction to the one the AB recommends.

<tink> ... Think we should close this one.

<tink> JJ: Suggest making our reasons clear in the comments.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/146


<tink> DS: Chaals thinks we have no way of doing as the issue suggests.

<tink> JJ: Don't think we should drop this.

<tink> DS: Don't think we're silent on how to update the Process.

<tink> ... Section 11

<dsinger> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#GAProcess

<tink> ... explains the Process goes through a similar process to a TR document.

<tink> ... "W3C may also modify the Process by following the process for modifying a Recommendation"

<tink> ... Propose we drop that sentence?


<tink> DS: PR.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/152


<tink> DS: Editorial, assigned to Chaals with LJWatson as reviewer.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/160


<tink> DS: Editorial.

<tink> +1

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/163


<tink> DS: What happens if a non-member org gets two people elected?

<tink> ... Also when an org nominates an employee one election, and a non-employee the next?

<tink> MC: It's a challenge.

<tink> One one hand we want the TAG to continue taking on responsibility for things like spec review, that need deep expertise.

<tink> ... That expertise isn't evenly distributed across the membership.

<tink> ... On the other hand it's arguably unfair to let the "usual suspect" have even more influence than they already do in the real world.

<tink> JJ: I'm ok with dropping the word "member".

<tink> ... On the broader issue that Chaals raised, I think it should be its own issue.

<tink> ... But if, for example, Google wants to nominate an employee, and in the next election they elect a non-employee/contractor, I don't have a problem.

<tink> DS: We need some requirement for transparency.

<tink> ... The AC needs to know of the relationship.

<tink> JJ: At a point there is no bounding these things.

<tink> JJ: Think we should take Yves suggestion.

<tink> DS: Agreed.

#160 (again)

<tink> JJ: Not sure it's an issue.

<tink> ... As written, it's defined as written.

<tink> ... Not sure we want to make things more verbose.

<tink> JJ: Will propose text in the comments.


<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/165

<tink> DS: My feeling is no.

<tink> ... It would be good for Tantek to argue the case though.

<tink> MC: Why would we not take it up as an issue?

<tink> DS: To discuss here in the CG or in the AB?

<tink> MC: In the AB seems fine to me.

<tink> JJ: AC forum is a better place for this discussion I think.

<tink> +1

<tink> MC: Good point

<tantek> am fine with either forum

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/166


<tink> DS: Think this is more Director material.

<tink> DS: Being appointed on this term, they should be automatically added to the election slate.

<tink> JJ: If they're good TAG members they shouldn't have any problem being nominated again.

<tink> DS: It'd be a good way to get feedback n Director's nominations.

<tink> ... Don't think this is one for this CG though.

<tink> ... Willcomment it should be discussed by AB and Director first.

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

<jeff_> scribenick: Jeff

<jeff_> DS: Does anyone have anything to say?

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/157

<jeff_> ... Natasha, Wendy, Chaals, Ralph, or me - I guess it is up to me.

<jeff_> ... No I don't want to review my assigned issues.

<jeff_> ... Agendum 6

<jeff_> NR: I'm happy to take up this one.

<dsinger> Jeff’s question: is there a forcing issue that would make Process2019 worthwhile?

<dsinger> see the candidate list at <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2019Candidate>

<dsinger> Jeff: Living Standards and Registries are two that seem really important

<jeff_> Jeff: A candidate big issue is "Living Standards"

<jeff_> Virginia: You need to fix the IPR issues first

<jeff_> Jeff: The AB is working on a proposal for PSIG for a new patent policy

<jeff_> ... maybe we take that up first; and if approved then we pick up the process issue around Living Standards.

<jeff_> DS: I agree

<jeff_> DS: Any other big issues

<jeff_> ... CGs, security, internationalization are improvement areas

<jeff_> Virginia: What numbers

<jeff_> David: 167 and 117

<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to go back to topic #160 and to

<jeff_> Jeff: What about LS for things that are not specs (AAMs, vocabularies)

<jeff_> David: And registries

<jeff_> Jeff: So one issue for easy LS things; and a stub for PP for LS

<jeff_> Virginia: Some things are already being done in CGs. Is that the right forum?

<jeff_> David: I'm writing a new issue - process for Registries, enumerations

<jeff_> Mike: Why are existing mechanisms (CG reports and WG notes) inadequate?

<jeff_> Jeff: No authority from W3C

<dsinger> I raised https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/168

<jeff_> +1

<jeff_> DS: Should we take 168 as a priority

<jeff_> VF: We should discuss it.

<jeff_> DS: Topic: Next meeting

<jeff_> ... not meeting in March.

<jeff_> ... conflicts with AB

<jeff_> ... For April, I am at 3GPP

<jeff_> ... but I can break for an hour on the 11th of April

<jeff_> ... Conflicts?

<dsinger> next meeting: April 11th

<dsinger> PLEASE work on your assignments,

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/02/21 17:56:02 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/do in the real world/already do in the real world/
Present: dsinger mchampion jeff Léonie natasha
Regrets: wseltzer chaals
Found Scribe: Léonie
Found ScribeNick: Jeff
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Jeff> ...

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 190 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

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

Found Date: 21 Feb 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]