Pull Requests

<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

Process 2019 Candidates

<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.)