Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 15 Aug 2018

<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting

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

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196

dsinger: pull requests
... from the top

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196

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

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199

natasha: proposal to clarify language re obsolete/superceded
... clarify that a Rec can be both superseded and obsolete
... and director request, submit to AC

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199/files

natasha: in the second place, I haven't used MUST/MAY
... does it always have to go to AC for review
... whether the Dir or anyone else proposes, must send to AC for review

florian: would be better if it were Team who must submit to AC review
... rather than creating new dependency on Director

jeff__: disagree

<dsinger> I agree that the current phrase is “The director does…” meaning the team

jeff__: I'd rather make all the Director-related changes at once
... leave this with "Director" until we do a deeper revision

dsinger: +1 for consistency

tink: A spec can be both Rescinded and Superseded?

natasha: I meant "superseded and obsolete"

dsinger: good to go
... 197

natasha: editorial, but a typo

florian: relatively unimportant
... don't think we need to change
... if we're trying to be clearer about definitions, then should convert doc to bikeshed to use its automated tools

natasha: trying to address 86 re duplication of text

tink: use abbr tag every time, and expand the first time
... and use a glossary of terms and defs

florian: bikeshed will do both

natasha: opened another issue re acronyms and terms

florian: don't fix one standalone

tink: it's a matter of readability

natasha: am I wrapping more than just "NOTE"?

tink: NOTE isn't an abbreviation

<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/197/files

florian: and there are other defined things

<jeff__> [NOTE appears to be the formal shortening of Working Group Note]

tink: take that out

natasha: then close with no change
... continue discussion in Issue 198

dsinger: Non-mmember license commitment

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196

dsinger: as we accept comments from the outside world
... can we improve the license commitments for contributions from non-members

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67

<florian> queuing to echo the question asked by dsinger in the issue: clarify the need for excluding error correction (and what that actually means)

wseltzer: reading PR and explaining from the issue
... error correction

<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to discuss 5.2.1.3

dsinger: I wanted to say "ask" for error correction, and require for all others
... lest we not even ask for a major change

<jeff_> [I seem to have dropped. Will redial.]

virginia: PSIG discussed what if we ask for commitment but doesn't get
... do we include the changes or not?
... error correction exception was added out of concern that we'd be over-restricting
... to give some discretion in determining whether error correction fits classes 3 or 4

dsinger: it may be indeed substantive

virginia: right, error correction does change compliance

<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to discuss @@

jeff_: editorial comment
... urge not to put the entire policy in the Prcess Doc
... e.g. in 5.2.1.3, we talk about IE agreement
... without putting the terms into the document
... link to what they agree to
... 4-line description should not be in the doc

dsinger: I want at least the lines that we must ask
... so the first sentence remains
... where we still have questions, and have to discuss what happens if we don't
... what shall we do about the error case?

florian: a bug-fix is still normative; it is substantive
... problem is that "error correction" goes beyond
... problem is that the text requires more than ask, it requires team to secure commitment
... so it requires we reject change if the person says no, because we've failed to secure
... if we change to request, then it leaves flexibility

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67

dsinger: look at my long comment from 12 days ago

florian: must request for class 3; must secure for class 4

virginia: class 3 could have new material, that's why we wanted "secure" there too
... since it could leave IP vulnerability
... and it's the implementers and users who bear the risk

dsinger: how do we include major error correction but exclude trivial

<florian> +1 to david's point

dsinger: I hear Jeff and Wendy suggesting leaving to practice rather than formalizing it all in the document
... proposal on the table, must request for class 3, and secure for class 4
... can we live with that?

<florian> w-

wseltzer: I can live with that

dsinger: remove "error correction
... phrase, and ^
... update PR

wseltzer: I'll do that

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67

dsinger: let's discuss in github

florian: I've found problems, but they need fixing, not discussion

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187

jeff_: chaals seems to have a problem

florian: we agree on not breaking the links

natasha: I implemented Fuqiao's suggestion
... but then florian spotted bugs

jeff_: I'd want chaals's eyes on it, so I'll ping him

florian: aim is to fix his issue

dsinger: 186

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/186

natasha: I need to look at files changed
... [reads text]

florian: problem is application of the word "immediately"

dsinger: previously, it included too many change of affiliation

florian: it still says vacated immediately

dsinger: if you end up with 2 people from same company, it should trigger immediate resignation
... if it's a different change, should vacate at next election

jeff_: same question as Florian
... this PR still hasn't changed since your question

natasha: we may be ok to close
... without applying the PR

dsinger: agree we should close

<jeff_> +1 to closing

dsinger: any objections to closing?

natasha: open a new issue if you have a cleanup to propose
... closing

florian: I have a different propsoal

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181

dsinger: discuss at next call

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

dsinger: Affiliatiion issue
... /github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181//github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176#issuecomment-410828059

florian: do you mean the company to which you're consulting or your own consultancy?

dsinger: co to which you're consulting

florian: please clarify in the text

dsinger: Is team ok to take that action?

jeff_: I'd give it a zero
... I don't know what problem it solves
... I don't object, but it seems odd

dsinger: cwilso thought if we were going to rest formal rules on "affiliation", we should define affiliation

jeff_: evergreen!
... there are other important areas of process to address

florian: for me, I have some support because it adds a bit of clarity that's useful

natasha: affiliation can be more than employment
... which is lost in this definition
... e.g. having a high number of shares in an org
... notwithstanding, I'm pro including this as-is

tink: this is all far too complicated
... people are elected to AB as individuals
... change of affiliation is important but as a matter of disclosure
... term means different things in different contexts

dsinger: can you please add alternate text?

tink: AB is elected as individual; TAG as organization rep

florian: it says that, but it also says stand at next election if your affiliation change
... if it moves to conflict, that's too strict

dsinger: not agreed to merge

jeff_: as to whether team would support, I don't know until I submit to W3M
... in response to your question above

<dsinger> #176 goes (a) for further discission and (b) to the team for analysis

dsinger: next call Sept. 12
... last call for PRs

jeff_: I think we should work hard to get evergreeen standards into the next process rev
... and so we should set deadlines based on that input, rather than TPAC
... calendar

dsinger: please work on issues between calls

<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to answer whether it is OK with the team.

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

15 Aug 2018

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output