<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls
<scribe> scribenick: wseltzer
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/188
dsinger: going through PRs
natasha: 188 written notification
of resignation must be recorded
... can we merge?
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/188/files
dsinger: written notification = there's a record
<dsinger> 188 approved!
natasha: ok, merging
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187/files
natasha: 187, editorial
improvements
... updated the anchor #last-call to #candidate-rec
dsinger: we shouldn't break links from external docs
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187#issuecomment-396453492
wseltzer: I support xfq's recommendation ^
<dsinger> back to the editor either to reject, or do the workaround for external links…
natasha: 186
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/186
natasha: text proposed; I think I was outnumbered, so should close
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/186/files
<tantek> +1 to those edits
natasha: adding clarity re seat vacated immediately
tantek: this is roughly what I proposed in email
dsinger: I thought we'd changed
it so the TAG wasn't vacated immediately at change of
affiliation
... but rather at the next election
natasha: is that issue 175?
... but something re participation constraints no longer
met
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/186/files
https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#AB-TAG-constraints
<dsinger> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#AB-TAG-constraints
dsinger: reading 2.5.1
[A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG except when having more than one participant is caused by a change of affiliation of an existing participant. At the completion of the next regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the Member organization must have returned to having at most one participant.]
dsinger: TAG seat not vacated immediately, but at next election
tantek: AB should happen immediately, because decision-making governance body
jeff_: yet for TAG, people might be in the middle of architectural work
<dsinger> so, a little tweaking needed on 186; TAG seats are not vacated immediately when the participation constraints are not met…
natasha: not sure why I proposed
this change...
... so someone can resign immediately
dsinger: let's come back at next meeting
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/185
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/185
natasha: 185, remove member
... should correct the bug that apparently, an org can cease
participation as Member then have 2 participants
dsinger: shouldn't allow 2 IEs
from same org
... on TAG or AB
tantek: why is nomination
relevant?
... so it's the actual org, not nominating org
... what's relevant is who they actually work for
<tantek> +1 to the change
dsinger: any objection to merging removal of the word "member"?
<dsinger> approved!
dsinger: ok to merge
natasha: 181
... per 172, https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/172
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/commit/ca97edce8121313a0ab64cdc7887467c8c1a29ae
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181/files
wseltzer: removing the "expected to be acceptable"...
jeff_: how do we feel about groups going to CR and not expecting to go right to Rec
tantek: that's bad
... CR should be a declaration that all known issues are
resolved
... don't allow sloppiness like DOM 4.1 fiasco
dsinger: CR is supposed to be
saying spec is ready
... looking for implementation experience
... but expecting confirmation that it's ready to go.
... not crazy about deleting the sentence
virginia: +1 to tantek and
david
... why would people publish CR otherwise
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/172
wseltzer: [reading some of the history, removing contradiction from an editorial note]
https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#candidate-rec
<tantek> people rush CRs for all sorts of bad reasons. happy to give specifics. the DOM 4.1 CR CFC has plenty. See Mozilla's Formal Objection in that thread.
dsinger: discuss further
jeff_: not sure we should be so
prescriptive as to make it a must
... maybe we now have the right balance
dsinger: add a bullet in 6.4 "should be acceptable as a Rec"
tantek: +1 to dsinger
... as we look at evaluating review drafts of Living Standard
as a CR, expectation of no changes
<dsinger> (notes that the bullets in 6.4 are requirements on the W3C, not on the document, so the sentence can’t be in that list)
tantek: should apply that standard everywhere
<tantek> sounds like we are at least agreed on a "should" instead of editorial note?
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/145
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to say issues rather than RPs
wseltzer: let's look back at the issues which spawned the PRs
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/138
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141
dsinger: Natasha, if you believe it's only editorial, go ahead and do it.
jeff_: doesn't seem purely
editorial
... around 2515, it seems to be removing from the director the
role of recommending Obsoleting and Rescinding and assigning to
W3C instead
tantek: and there's an @@how/where, so it's not ready
dsinger: not ready yet
... last 2 are policy questions AB hasn't agreed on
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2019Candidate
dsinger: process 2019 candidates, what should we be progressing?
<tantek> Issue 60 is on that list
<tantek> trackbot, go away
<trackbot> Sorry, tantek, I don't understand 'trackbot, go away'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
<tantek> trackbot, bye
jeff_: the AB has a TF on Living
Standards, related to #79
... is this a Process 2019 Candidate?
<tantek> I think https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176 should be a Process2019Candidate as well
jeff_: if we can get it done fast, we should
dsinger: Wseltzer, PLH, and I
have been drafting https://www.w3.org/wiki/Living_Standards
... we sent it back to AB yesterday
... expect to bring it here soon
... linking it to the issue now.
... please review
virginia: Living Standards is not just process issue, also Patent Policy
dsinger: agreed; it needs to go to PSIG, AC, Team,
tantek: 176 has some urgency
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176
tantek: The term "Affiliation" is
used in several places but not strictly defined
... we had an example in the AB of contested affiliation
change
... nominate for Pr2019 Candidate
dsinger: any objections to taking
this up?
... so labeled
tantek: the issue has a long
thread
... clarify that affiliation changes when you leave an
employer, even if you haven't moved to another
<natasha> +1
tantek: all the reasons for which
you need to know affiliation
... even if you leave and are re-hired, that's affiliation
change
<Zakim> jj, you wanted to discuss #176 and COI
jeff_: also looked at COI
policy
... which is not limited to AB and TAG
... look at affiliation and COI broadly, not just as it relates
to AB and TAG
tantek: urgency is on the AB and
TAG elections
... so I'd like to keep the focus there
... while keeping in mind the broader aspects
dsinger: for avoidance of doubt, the following always count as changes of affiliation
<dsinger> I support the idea of a sentence “for the avoidance of doubt, the following are always considered a change of affiliation” and a section “other changes of affiliation fall under the disclosure policy of conflicts of interest”.
natasha: whoever writes it should be talking about what they'd like to see from any member of the commmunity
tantek: you can assign it to me
<jeff_> scribe: jeff
<jeff_> DS: Can't assign to tantek
<jeff_> TC: Need to add me to the project
<jeff_> NR: Can do that
<jeff_> NR: I can take #157 and #117.
<jeff_> DS: Thanks.
<jeff_> DS: I will send poll for new time for meeting.
<jeff_> ... please move issues and PRs
<jeff_> ... AOB
<chaals> [Any wording on emplyment change needs to take account of the fact that large organisations can have complex employment structures that can result in effecctive changes of employer...]
<jeff_> [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) Present: natasha wseltzer dsinger jeff Virginia tantek Found ScribeNick: wseltzer Found Scribe: jeff Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2018Jun/0003.html WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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]