<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.
<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,
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]