Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

11 Jul 2018



dsinger, mchampion, Florian, tzviya, wseltzer, tantek, fantasai


<scribe> scribenick: wseltzer

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

<dsinger> 187 is editorial

dsinger: PR 187, editorial

florian: keep both anchors working

dsinger: PR 186
... rewrite hasn't happened yet
... PR 181

<dsinger> 186 no progress

<dsinger> links to issue 172

florian: be clearer that we're supposed to advance on draft maturity
... rather than deadlines
... not specific to CR

<florian> I think there's two parts, and the edit isn't quite ready

<florian> part 1) we should be clear that TR progress (not just for CR) is tied to maturity, not deadlines

<florian> part 2) we should probably make a different statement for updates. going from WD to CR needs proof that there are no (substantial) issues left

dsinger: not ready yet

<florian> but going from CR to CR should not be blocked on reaching 0 issues.

<fantasai> +1

dsinger: we need to be making more issues into PRs

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2019Candidate

dsinger: Process 2019 priorities


<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67

dsinger: Issue 67

wseltzer: believe this is addressed by procedures, does not require changes in Process

tzviya: conversation with Ralph yesterday
... question whether it might or might not be desirable to restrict types of comments from people outside WG
... a social issue, not necessarily Process

<dsinger> 1) The team can’t currently say “The process requires that we seek an IPR commitment”. Do they want/need to be able to?

wseltzer: I'm comfortable saying Patent Policy applies
... and requires commitment

<dsinger> 2) The current text asks them to subscribe to the Patent Policy, which is not quite what we want. They come, they say something to us, and go away; we need a license, not an agreement that the PP is nice.

florian: do we have cases where it's a problem?

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

wseltzer: there have been rare instances where we've had to reject a contribution because we couldn't get necessary commitment.

dsinger: 176
... Affiliation

florian: what happens if I incorporate? is that an affiliation change?

tzviya: lots of experience with publishing, linked data

dsinger: we need to ping Tantek
... we're nowhere near a PR

florian: might we spend a bit of time at AB F2F?
... going through cases I listed

dsinger: take back to AB and Tantek
... 79
... Process supporting "Living Standards"?
... I have some edits pending, re snapshots
... invite input to wiki

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

dsinger: 157, Testing
... needs more discussion
... 60, OMG voting
... skip

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24

dsinger: 24, intention is clear, need proposed text
... anyone want to take it on?
... distinguish between the rules that must be applied, and defaults that a charter may override
... leave it with Natasha

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/17

dsinger: 17, ref to separate docs re CG/BG
... propose adding link in CG/BG process re dismissal
... and describing transitions from CG -> WG

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/180


dsinger: [[I think we need to say in the introduction at the end of section 1 "The W3C also operates Community and Business Groups, which are separately described in their own process document." and link to https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/. Those pages probably need an update to include "Dismissal from a community or business group" and allow the Director to dismiss for cause. Do we need

conflict of interest policy links in the CG/BG ...

scribe: process?]]


dsinger: 83, written notification
... 163,
... florian, can you add 163 in the Affiliation discussion?

<dsinger> We should link 163 to the affiliation question and deal with it at the AB as a bundle

dsinger: wide review, long discussion, unterminated

wseltzer: I'll ping Ralph on this one

dsinger: it may be that we need to move to a more agile process with tooling

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/28

dsinger: 28. Changes
... someone should go through the process doc for all occurrences of the word "change" to see what needs definition
... natasha is currently assigned
... 117, hard requirements form security, privacy, i18n, and a11y considerations
... does anyone think it needs Process change?

<florian> There are 2 topics I would like to add Process2019Candidate (and I'm happy to work on text for both): #172 and #182. Not needed to discuss today, but what's the process for adding these?

dsinger: not so impressed by our progress

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/194

<scribe> ... new issues since June call, 194

tzviya: related to prior question on outside contributions

<tantek> frankly the documentation for how to use github with w3c is still quite undiscoverable and unmaintained / lost in a bunch of slides in random places

fantasai: not really a question for the Process

<tzviya> +1 to tantek's comment

fantasai: "what goes in github" is similar to "what goes on W3C website"

<tantek> I tried to keep track of things on the wiki at https://www.w3.org/wiki/GitHub while I was co-chairing Social Web WG but seems like no one else cares to add to it

<tantek> so if you care about this issue, please add to the wiki pge

<tantek> kinda tired of github docs being spread around rando slides and rando w3.org URLs that are not community editable

wseltzer: I'll flag to the team to add to GH/W3C documentation

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/193

<tantek> +1 on 193

dsinger: if you think we should take this up as a candidate, speak up

florian: I'm conflicted
... incentive to run, or pressure not to run

<tantek> it is much more common in elections to know who is running while candidacies are being announced

<tantek> also this is currently only screwed up by current mis-implemented STV system

dsinger: take it to the AB

<tantek> IF we actually did STV per-open-seat, then there would be no downside of announcing candidacies when they are nominated

dsinger: 189, is this a Process issue? don't think so

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

<tantek> whereas now, with mis-implemented STV, we get the effect of people being afraid of diluting the #1 votes of similar candidates, and cancelling each other out

<tantek> so I'm a strong +1 on 193, because I think it is right, and it will also motivate fixing our STV implementation to use STV per-open-seat

dsinger: 172 relates to PR 181
... 168, registries, APIs and other enumerations. seeking help

<florian> yes, #182

dsinger: if we're goting to have something by TPAC, time is tight

florian: 182


<tantek> strong +1 on 182

scribe: formalize the disposition of comments on Charter Review

<tantek> charter iteration is far too "back room" currently

<tantek> this is a big area for the AB to drive opening up

<tantek> how charters are written, how chairs are chosen, how comments on charters are addressed, how charters are iterated, etc.

dsinger: you form part of the consensus body for reviewing charter changes if you voted at all

wseltzer: that is the process we have been following

florian: happy to work on it

<tantek> I think process needs to more formally mention how chartering works / should work

<florian> tantek: +1

<fantasai> +!

<tantek> thought: Process has notions for how to elect AB / TAG, but nothing about potentially recalling AB / TAG members

<tantek> e.g. in all the theoretical Voldemort examples given, it might be help address the concerns about Voldemort being elected, if there was a way for the AC to nominate someone for recall and then a simple majority able to remove them

<tantek> it is a problem that can't hear you

<dsinger> Propose that we DO hold the process call 1-hour as part of/during the AB meeting

<dsinger> so many issues here are waiting for AB input or action

<tantek> I can live with that as long as we still get to have lunch

<mchampion> At the usual time?

<dsinger> so it would be later in the day (10am Boston is just as we are getting starting) on that second wednesday

<florian> fine by me if people want to join. if all non ab members send regrets, we can skip the calling parts

<dsinger> Does anyone object?

<dsinger> Hearing no objection, I will ask Jeff for that slot

dsinger: anything else to discuss?

<tantek> dsinger: issue to address: ability to recall individual AB / TAG members

<dsinger> do I hear a motion to adjourn?

<tantek> as a way to address the voldemort problem

<tantek> see above

<tantek> I'm on the call but it is so noisy here you won't be able to hear me

<dsinger> Let’s take the discussion into the issue

<tantek> wanted to get an impression from folks

<tantek> before filing issue


<florian> In agreement with Tantek's earlier statement, if we switch to something other than current STV (per seat STV, approval voting), I'd be happy with open announces of candidacies

<tantek> point is, after an election, if somehow a voldemort gets elected, there is enough time for AC to nominate for recall, and vote to remove before they are seated

dsinger: please make pull requests

<tantek> or if a member of AB / TAG violates various expectations of role, AC can nominate to recall

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/07/11 14:57:33 $

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)

Present: dsinger mchampion Florian tzviya wseltzer tantek fantasai
Found ScribeNick: wseltzer
Inferring Scribes: wseltzer

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2018Jul/0005.html
Found Date: 11 Jul 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

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]