<scribe> scribenick: wseltzer

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls

dsinger: cleaning up pending pull requests

chaals: 54: you don't agree with me
... 145 is putting a feature in

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/145

chaals: hand over to the editor, her call.

dsinger: remove the "not agreed for merging (yet)" label

chaals: editor may well decide to reject it

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/145

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/145/commits/785cc93474c0fb534d5e1d9b6f3a612787a64f39

<chaals> the changes

jeff: don't support merging without discussion
... since there's another issue around the same text, which I don't support, re obsoleting without the director

dsinger: we deferred last time
... because it was too close to ship-time

jeff: if there are substantive changes, bring back

dsinger: so noted

3) New issues and updates.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2018-02-21

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/169

dsinger: 169?

jeff: situation where someone developed a doc in a CG and wanted to make it a Member Submission. Proposed amending the process to change "outside of W3C" to "outside of W3C technical development process"
... then I got objections

<jeff> David: Why did they want to use the Member submission process?

<jeff> Wendy: They had started outside of W3C

<jeff> ... they considered Member Submission as one option

<jeff> ... concluded to use CG report process

<jeff> ... in some cases people might find member submission IPR easier to provide than CLA

<jeff> David: If in CG it should be CLA. If outside CG they could submit original document

<jeff> ... maybe we should clarify how CG docs advance

<jeff> Chaals: +1

<jeff> David: +1 to Chaals' +1 of my point

<jeff> ... can we transmogrify this

<jeff> Wendy: That would be a distinct issue.

dsinger: I'll create that issue

<dsinger> added issue https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/180 Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document

chaals: this (169) is a tame change
... if we're ok, then merge
... if we prefer the CG final report process, then it seems premature to change the process to highlight that path before working out whether we want to promote a different default path such as using a CG Final report

dsinger: should we assign anyone to this or 180?
... start with 180, then consider 169

<dsinger> dave self-assigns #180 to look at it

dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/171 is editorial

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/172

<jeff> Wendy: I was chatting with PLH

<jeff> ... we want to push back on some of them

<jeff> ... more detailed than needed in process

<jeff> ... questions for Director on case-by-case basis

chaals: intent to say WGs shouldn't put things into CR that are speculative. I think an editorial clarification could be helpful but don't think the underlying sentiment should change
... don't put them in CR "just in case"

dsinger: +1
... 173
... 174

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/174

<jeff> +1 to close

dsinger: since blockage seems cleared, close this one
... 175, editorial

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176

dsinger: 176

chaals: it would be useful to define what we mean
... because there's clear disagreement
... whether it means "someone nominated as representative" as 3.1.2. or something else
... fwiw, I think "member nominated you" is what it meant

dsinger: take it up?

jeff: we have 3.1.1 conflict of interest policy
... we talk about affiliations, plural

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

jeff: we have examples where disclosure is appropriate
... is "WHATWG Steering Group" a change of affiliation, versus a disclosable event

dsinger: I think we should stop using the term "affiliation" in 3.1.1 and be clear that it is "who nominated you"

jeff: propose we not go down the rathole

dsinger: I added a comment

jeff: if you were nominated by someone with whom you had no other connection, then it can never change?

chaals: there are real examples
... I think basic principle :if someone nominates you, they hold the keys to your nomination, and can turn it off
... their choice whom they allow to speak in their name

dsinger: q whether the org that nominated no longer sustains the nomination
... leave it unassigned

chaals: I support your suggestion to change text of 3.1.1

jeff: I oppose
... WHATWG proposes to work collaboratively, so I deemed not change of affiliation, but if it were positioned as a competitor, I'd want the opportunity to say it should trigger a vote for the seat

chaals: reading from https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#member-rep

dsinger: https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#ParticipationCriteria

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/177

dsinger: what next?
... assigned issues, 2019candidates, or unassigned?

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2018-02-21

dsinger: we looked at those
... None without assignees. excellent

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2018-02-21

Updated issues

dsinger: any ready to close?

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

jeff: issue 168
... volunteer ready to take on this topic

<scribe> ... new member Hawkeworks

dsinger: living standards, you wanted to take back to team

jeff: planning discussion with team, AB

wseltzer: propose to close without change
... added a comment to the thread.

jeff: 166, propose to close as a dumb idea
... it was a fine thought experiment

dsinger: 165?

jeff: still an active discussion
... 157.

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/157

<dsinger> notes that the word ‘test’ occurs only 4 times in the process document

jeff: in the past, we discussed but determined not to put into Process 2015

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about #166

chaals: against putting it into the process, don't create busywork
... so long as it's clear that director expects to be shown what works, and explanation
... appropriate set of tests seems to be relevant

dsinger: think it's again case-by-case

wseltzer: charter template [[Testing plans for each specification, starting from the earliest drafts.]]
... and groups are adding test-as-you commit
... [[Consider adopting a healthy testing policy, such as: To promote interoperability, all changes made to specifications should have tests.]]

https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html

jeff: talking about living standards, IPR
... a new IPR policy would make sense only with a complete overhaul, I've said, so that might be the time to address.

next meeting

jeff: I'm still struggling to find big deliverable for Process 2019
... how might we move the focus there?

dsinger: next time, let's discuss specific 2019 Candidates
... May 2.

[adjourned]

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/54?/54: you don't agree with me/
Succeeded: s/htt/-> htt/
Succeeded: s/phy (sp?)/fy/
Succeeded: s/don't call attention/it seems premature to change the process to highlight that path before working out whether we want to promote a different default path such as using a CG Final report/
Succeeded: s/speculative/speculative. I think an editorial clarification could be helpful but don't think the underlying sentiment should change/
Succeeded: s/@@/3.1.1 and be clear that it is "who nominated you"/
Succeeded: s/Azb/AB/
Present: jeff wseltzer dsinger chaals Léonie
Regrets: Virginia
Found ScribeNick: wseltzer
Inferring Scribes: wseltzer
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2018Feb/0008.html
Found Date: 11 Apr 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.)