Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

12 Sep 2018



tzviya, mchampion, dsinger, wseltzer, jeff, Léonie, (tink), Florian, tantek, natasha


<scribe> scribenick: wseltzer

dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls starting from lowest #

florian: I'd like to discuss 54

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/54

florian: I think we should accept multiple representations as it's ineffective to say otherwise
... people can relay opinions of others
... and if all are members of WG, IP is covered

tink: will the result be to say a person represents at least one org?


florian: PR removes sentence that particpant represents at most one org

dsinger: there's some ancillary work. Does person have to be nominated by multiple AC reps?

florian: I don't see what the effect is
... so long as both ACs/orgs are members of the group

tink: we all draw on different experiences

florian: I don't think deleting the sentence introduces problem

dsinger: you can't be representing org not a member of the group
... need someone assigned

<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss tooling

wseltzer: we'd need to make sure that tooling can represent multiple affiliations

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181

<scribe> ACTION: wseltzer to check with systeam re affiliating an individual with multiple orgs in a group

<trackbot> Error finding 'wseltzer'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/users>.


dsinger: 181

florian: I will write text
... once I know if we have consensus
... what if after CR, you discover 2 issues, both of which are serious. Can you fix one, and repub CR?
... even though there's still a problem with the other?
... if we agree, then I can write text

dsinger: this PR still needs work

wseltzer: sounds as though we're no longer discussing the text of PR 181
... close it?

dsinger: no consensus to delete the sentence without further action

florian: should I try writing text?

dsinger: please do

RESOLUTION: close PR 181 without adoption

dsinger: 187

florian: not ready

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187

<dsinger> 187 is not ready

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/195

dsinger: 195?
... no, not ready

<dsinger> not ready either, see conversation

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/200

dsinger: 200

wseltzer: can someone fix the typo?

florian: I'll fix after the call

dsinger: approved to merge

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/202

dsinger: 202
... "Increase the size of the AB"

florian: it seems to implement the resolution perfectly, but everyone seems to be disagreeing with it

dsinger: I agreed at the time, but reconsidering, am concerned that it makes AB discussions longer and harder to schedule

tink: I think it's a good idea

mchampion: like dsinger thought it better than status quo
... and doubt we can get consensus to do better
... I'd prefer flexibility
... fundamental problem I see is that there are highly qualified people for AB and TAG who don't get elected
... concerns, but can be mitigated

jeff: there was an AB consensus we should make this change
... since AB works through Process CG, it becomes a PR here
... as we evaluate PRs, this PR doesn't have an M or an N (upper or lower bound)
... if people wand that, need a PR

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to discuss STV

jeff: as we learned in issue 60, we need careful language around voting

dsinger: concern is that in the past, we've had elections with only the number of candidates as seats
... if we increase the seats, what happens if we fail to find sufficient candidates?

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to point out that the size of the ab should be addressed apart from election style

dsinger: not an STV issue

tzviya: it's important for us to consider min-max for ideal size, and address separately from election style
... how many people is an ideal board #?
... if the only reason we're doing this is STV, then address STV

<tink> +1 Tzviya.

florian: consider whether you want to have a way to reject people, e.g. approval voting

<tantek> +1 to what florian is suggestin considering

<tantek> if with approval voting someone gets < 50% vote that's a pretty strong indication from the electorate

florian: in an election I run, if you get less than 50% of vote, you're not elected

<tantek> anyway we can make that change IF we do approval voting, later

florian: we should turn to the main questoin

tink: agree with points cwilso made in opening comment
... more participants, increased opportunity for diversity
... should we try extending by just 1?
... and then adding another?

<tantek> +1 agree with tink's summary, we are blessed with more diverse and active candidates running for AB, though I'm ok with 1 or 2 additional people

<tzviya> +1 tink

dsinger: for some reason, AB is an odd number

<florian> we work by consensus, not vote, so odd or even don't matter much.

tink: I think cwilso and I were strongest proponent

<cwilso> (sorry, bad night, missed reminder)

<tantek> please post pull request URL for the record

wseltzer: suggest that AB shouldn't re-discuss as a subset in the Process CG

<florian> I'm hearing no strong opposition, but lots of skepticism. I would therefore not sure to this, and suggest resisting once we've fixed the core election questions.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/202

<tantek> ty

<cwilso> Only thing I wanted to say was that if you do no more than M, please make no other candidate work too.

dsinger: does anyone oppose?

florian: hearing lots of skepticism

<cwilso> I can edit that in the process is requested

<tantek> pretty sure +1, double-checking

jeff: did we decide to do only AB, not TAG?

dsinger: yes

<tantek> +1 to pull request

jeff: think we had said "AB and possibly TAG"

<tantek> it is a net improvement, we can improve further

<mchampion> I don't oppose this PR; it's probably the best mitigation for my concerns about the election process that can get consensus.

<tink> +1 to the PR

dsinger: I hear support and no opposition

<cwilso> Jeff: yes , I asked for some opinions and they were the tag is okay.

dsinger: and that I should offer a separate PR if I want to do future-proofing re M/N
... any disagreement?

RESOLUTION: 202 is approved

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/203

dsinger: 203, define affiliation
... team checked that asking on nomination form would be ok

jeff: note we're increasing the length of the process

<florian> all other things being equal, shorter is better. But removing ambiguity takes precedence

dsinger: any opposition?

RESOLUTION: approve 203

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+assignee%3A*+label%3AProcess2019Candidate

dsinger: 2019 priorities. Why aren't we addressing?
... if they're priorities, why don't we have PRs?

florian: 182

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/182

florian: propose a more detailed process
... team commitment is insufficient to assure the future
... suggest we try to write the process in sufficient detail, debug, then put it in process

<dsinger> or indeed, put an abbreviated list of the requirements in the process, and the details of how to meet them in a separate document

florian: don't just drop it into the process at that level of complexity

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss 79

<tantek> I think 182 is important but difficult to propose language for

<tantek> that works across groups / needs etc.

wseltzer: thanks florian, sounds like a good approach and I look forwared to reviewing

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

jeff: 79 is big, one of the things that would really make rev of the process worthwhile
... my observation is that both Process CG and AB are moving too slowly in addressing this
... AB is consumed by Legal Entity, another important discussion

<tantek> I half agree with Jeff, living standards is more important for AB to work on than legal entity

<tantek> (mostly because living standards feels more doable, whereas it doesn't feel like we are remotely close to a good path for a minimum viable legal entity)

jeff: a small group should try to push living standards forward

<tantek> (however I do think a healthy and positive WHATWG relationship is both (more?) important, and would benefit from more living-standards-like process at W3C)

dsinger: could say in process doc that experimental LS process could be used, with pointer elsewhere for the LS process itself
... leaving a sandbox for revision on a different timeline


jeff: we could try
... but one of the things that give W3C Rec its gravitas is formal process
... and experimental process might lack that
... I'd be happy to participate in TF

florian: I agree LS address a useful need for registries, but not for general-purpose

dsinger: I've tried to get folks from Webrtc involved, as I want real use cases

<tantek> Agreed dsinger's concern with worry about solving in the abstract

jeff: I sent an email with 8 use cases

<tantek> perhaps use-cases belong on the wiki instead of email?

<tantek> (I missed the email completely, putting stuff in an email thread only works for discussion, it gets lost for any attempt at reference)

dsinger: suggest that chair of AB chair and CG chair talk

florian: I'm willing to help

<tantek> Thank you Jeff!

[wseltzer: I'm willing to help with LS as well]

dsinger: any other Process 2019?

<tantek> Great job with resolving # of AB/TAG and affiliation. Those have been long discussed. Thanks Dave!

dsinger: next call?

<tantek> can we do next call on first Wednesday of the month?

<tantek> YES


<tantek> I think we should present the process to the AB / AC

dsinger: Oct 3

<jeff> -1 to moving forward at this time

<tantek> +1 2018-10-03

<tzviya> i can make it on Oct 3

<jeff> Wfm

<tantek> also gives last call for any pull requests for Process 2019

dsinger: and there, determine whether to move forward with Process this year

<tantek> Thanks dsinger, very productive telcon

dsinger: Next call Oct 3 2018
... there are PRs to approve and issues to close
... we'd like draft by next meeting

<dsinger> bye


<tantek> \o/

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: wseltzer to check with systeam re affiliating an individual with multiple orgs in a group

Summary of Resolutions

  1. close PR 181 without adoption
  2. 202 is approved
  3. approve 203
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/09/12 15:00:54 $

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)

Succeeded: s/cnage/change/
Succeeded: s/Oct 2//
Present: tzviya mchampion dsinger wseltzer jeff Léonie (tink) Florian tantek natasha
Found ScribeNick: wseltzer
Inferring Scribes: wseltzer

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2018Sep/0000.html
Found Date: 12 Sep 2018
People with action items: wseltzer

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]