15:01:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:01:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/02/13-w3process-irc
15:01:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:01:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:01:32 <trackbot> Date: 13 February 2019
15:02:10 <jeff> present+
15:02:44 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
15:03:03 <jeff> scribe: jeff
15:03:16 <jeff> David: Congrats on P2019
15:03:28 <jeff> ... noone voted against it
15:03:43 <jeff> ... Florian, tell us about Bikeshed, tagging, bots, etc.
15:03:55 <jeff> FR: Topic: Scribing bot
15:04:22 <jeff> ... The bot recognizes topics
15:04:42 <jeff> ... then it can consider a discussion as associated with an issue
15:04:56 <jeff> ... provides links to github; we can find things later
15:05:01 <jeff> e.g.
15:05:07 <jeff> Topic: Scribing bot
15:05:14 <jeff> github: url
15:05:20 <jeff> to a url issue
15:05:30 <jeff> FR: I converted to bikeshed
15:05:43 <jeff> ... automatic publish to github io
15:05:48 <jeff> ... mostly markdown
15:05:53 <jeff> ... tell me if any problems
15:06:03 <jeff> ... just source code in repo
15:06:12 <jeff> ... generate local version of spec before committing
15:06:23 <jeff> ... installing bikeshed should not be hard
15:06:35 <jeff> ... windows, mac, linux, android
15:06:42 <jeff> ... tell me about problems
15:06:42 <dsinger> looking at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/blob/master/index.bs I see lots of indenting and pretty-printing. manually done? required?
15:06:54 <jeff> ... easier maintenance of source
15:07:09 <jeff> ... automatic compilations of definitions
15:07:13 <jeff> ... looks nice
15:07:18 <jeff> Topic: Labels
15:07:31 <jeff> ... this helps with organizing calls
15:07:42 <jeff> ... just looking at item that is not moving does not help a lot
15:07:47 <mchampion> present+
15:08:00 <jeff> ... other labels are obvious
15:08:07 <jeff> Topic: DoC label
15:08:11 <jeff> ... used by editor
15:08:17 <jeff> ... the rest of us may ignore
15:08:27 <jeff> ... for distribution of comments
15:08:36 <jeff> DS: What about the really nice layout
15:08:41 <jeff> FR: Done manually
15:08:46 <jeff> ... I recommend it
15:08:48 <jeff> ... readable
15:08:56 <jeff> ... not needed by bikeshed
15:09:13 <jeff> DS: Use that formatting on pull requests
15:09:37 <jeff> FR: Process <y#> label.  I find it confusing.
15:09:44 <jeff> ... I suggest we stop using labels
15:09:50 <natasha> +1 for using projects
15:09:51 <jeff> ... use github project instead
15:09:55 <natasha> ...or milestones
15:10:04 <cwilso> Why project rather than milestone?
15:10:05 <jeff> ... put into Process 2020 for this year's work
15:10:12 <jeff> ... rest in Process 2021
15:10:17 <jeff> ... Does that work?
15:10:21 <cwilso> q+
15:10:29 <jeff> DS: Don't see a problem
15:10:32 <natasha> s/...or /or
15:10:40 <cwilso> ack c
15:10:41 <jeff> CW: Why CG project rather than milestone?
15:10:50 <jeff> FR: Didn't seem more involved
15:10:57 <jeff> ... past has had overlap
15:11:12 <jeff> ... Process 2019; P2019 Candidate; AB 2019
15:11:21 <jeff> CW: Labels are bad
15:11:37 <jeff> ... Milestones are good.
15:11:59 <jeff> ... they say where we deal with something
15:12:10 <jeff> FR: I've never used milestones so I went with labels
15:12:13 <cwilso> s/bad/probably not the right choice
15:12:28 <jeff> DS: That's a useful piece.
15:12:40 <jeff> ... can we take management minutiae offline?
15:12:46 <jeff> ... Qs?
15:12:59 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Agenda%2B
15:13:07 <jeff> Topic Pull requests and agenda +'s
15:13:21 <jeff> ... #247
15:13:26 <florian> topic: Remove extraneous phrasing
15:13:37 <florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/247
15:14:15 <jeff> ... no need to be polite
15:14:23 <jeff> ... so delete "please note"
15:14:42 <jeff> topic: missing auxiliary
15:14:54 <jeff> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/240
15:15:45 <jeff> [FR: reads PR]
15:17:02 <jeff> Decision: Leave until next call, then integrate.
15:17:06 <cwilso> LGTM
15:17:38 <jeff> DS: Objections to integrate 240 and 247 now?
15:17:43 <jeff> ... I take this as consent.
15:17:47 <jeff> Topic: WDs are incorrectly characterized in 6.2.1
15:17:56 <jeff> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/235
15:18:30 <jeff> DS: Consensus of the WG is that it is the WD
15:18:52 <jeff> FR: In GH there have been 2 or 3 iterations
15:19:16 <jeff> ... WDs do not necessarily represent consensus of WG or endorsement by W3C
15:19:24 <jeff> ... but WG is publishing for wide review
15:19:51 <jeff> FR: This is in GH so it does not need to be scribed
15:20:12 <jeff> ... specific in the comment from me 7 days ago (scribe note, presumably that is 6 February)
15:20:51 <jeff> DS: Comments?
15:21:23 <jeff> ... I would like to add after nevertheless... "this is the draft the WG is working on and should be reviewed"
15:21:24 <jeff> q+
15:21:50 <dsinger> after "Nevertheless the Working Group has" I would like to add "agreed that this is the draft they are working on and "
15:22:01 <florian> jeff: wondering if dsinger can make his comment in github, so that others can review offline
15:22:08 <jeff> ack je
15:22:23 <jeff> DS: Roughly the right track?
15:22:29 <jeff> q+
15:22:36 <jeff> ... anyone mind adding this
15:23:41 <florian> jeff: I don't mind any of these changes, but I want to point out that trying to be always more precise tends to make the document longer, and we should be careful not to be too verbose.
15:23:47 <jeff> ack je
15:23:53 <mchampion> +1 to Jeff's point
15:24:05 <jeff> DS: Perhaps we should add an issue to make the document more succinct
15:24:12 <jeff> ... leave it for next month.
15:24:40 <florian> scribe: florian
15:24:54 <florian> topic: Living Standards
15:25:02 <florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79
15:25:18 <jeff> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards
15:25:30 <florian> jeff: At the last AB meeting, the AB approved to move the discussion about living standards to the process cg on the basis of the document linked above
15:25:48 <florian> jeff: this proposes creating a new track for specs
15:26:00 <florian> jeff: the document mixes explanation, motivation, process, etc
15:26:11 <florian> jeff: the document is poorly suited to being a pull request
15:26:28 <florian> jeff: but we need a strategy to socialize this
15:26:53 <florian> jeff: and we need to think of a way to turn this conceptual document into process text that could be proposed as a pull request
15:26:58 <florian> q+
15:27:21 <jeff> ack fl
15:27:22 <dsinger> q+
15:27:36 <jeff> FR: The AB agreed to push this into Process CG space
15:27:41 <jeff> ... worthy of discussion
15:27:41 <mchampion> q+ to ask whether we see the Evergreen standards process as part of the Process Document or akin to the Community Group process that  lives outside it
15:27:49 <jeff> ... not unanimity that this was a good idea to do
15:27:57 <jeff> ... but at least a good idea to explore
15:28:10 <jeff> ... some like myself and Chaals are not yet sold
15:28:20 <dsinger> ack mch
15:28:20 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to ask whether we see the Evergreen standards process as part of the Process Document or akin to the Community Group process that  lives outside it
15:28:25 <jeff> MC: ^^
15:28:40 <jeff> q+ to respond to Mike
15:29:04 <jeff> MC:  Is it like CGs
15:29:14 <jeff> ... but in that case we never integrated them
15:29:22 <jeff> ... no strong feeling, but at least a question
15:29:33 <jeff> DS: For CGs we needed to keep separate because open to public
15:29:40 <jeff> ... Process for Member stuff
15:29:48 <jeff> ... on ways ahead:
15:29:52 <jeff> ... PSIG for IPR
15:30:02 <jeff> ... Process CG folks should read the wiki
15:30:08 <jeff> ack ds
15:30:08 <mchampion> q+  to talk about patent policy
15:30:18 <jeff> ... Socialize it at AC meeting
15:30:31 <jeff> ... assess AC support
15:30:45 <jeff> ... for document structure; this is an alternative to section 6.
15:30:55 <jeff> ... should be an annex while experimental
15:31:08 <jeff> ... PSIG should do the same
15:31:23 <mchampion> +1 keeping it as an annex to the process and PP
15:31:55 <jeff> ... so I and Jeff need to convert this discursive discussion into actual process text
15:32:00 <florian> florian: we did discuss this in the AB, and agree to move the disucssion to the process cg on the basis on that document, but I want to note that there was not unanimity on whether it was a good idea. Notably, at least chaals and myself though that adding this alternative track was a bad idea, but we did agree that it should be discussed in the open.
15:32:08 <dsinger> q?
15:32:20 <dsinger> ack je
15:32:20 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to Mike
15:34:12 <dsinger> q?
15:34:18 <dsinger> q+ to talk about Registries
15:34:58 <jeff> Jeff: +1 to Dave on experimental
15:35:03 <tzviya> +1 jeff
15:35:16 <jeff> ... needs to be in Process doc since we are conferring status
15:35:27 <jeff> ... need much wider review than just AC - not clear how to get that done
15:35:35 <dsinger> ack mch
15:35:35 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to talk about patent policy
15:36:09 <mchampion> The most efficient way to get patent policy language is by having W3C attorney(s) work with member attorneys offline, then take a concrete proposal to PSIG for thumbs up/down
15:37:12 <jeff> Jeff: +1
15:37:35 <dsinger> q?
15:37:45 <jeff> ack ds
15:37:45 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about Registries
15:37:57 <jeff> DS: Please also read the related topic of "registries"
15:38:23 <jeff> ... matches GH issue
15:38:47 <mchampion> q+ to ask how we come to consensus on whether this is actually a good idea
15:39:02 <dsinger> ack mcha
15:39:02 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to ask how we come to consensus on whether this is actually a good idea
15:39:08 <tzviya> q+
15:39:18 <jeff> MC: ^^^
15:39:25 <jeff> DS: We need a plusses and minuses doc
15:39:31 <jeff> MC: What you said
15:39:43 <jeff> ... an explainer
15:40:02 <jeff> ... elevator pitches
15:40:21 <jeff> DS: Good idea
15:40:21 <florian> wfm
15:40:30 <dsinger> q?
15:40:34 <dsinger> ack tz
15:40:36 <jeff> ... Jeff and my action
15:40:47 <jeff> TS: Broader communication
15:40:52 <jeff> ... explainer is a great idea
15:41:04 <jeff> ... could send to AC and chairs
15:41:08 <jeff> ... blog post
15:41:22 <jeff> ... explicitly ask people (e.g. chairs) to forward
15:41:34 <jeff> ... needs explainer first
15:41:48 <jeff> DS: Need 1. Motivation
15:41:53 <jeff> ... Explainer
15:42:01 <jeff> ... 3. Plusses and minusses
15:42:08 <jeff> ... 4. Lawyers
15:42:16 <jeff> ... 5. Ready to talk at AC meeting
15:42:16 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2020Candidate
15:42:25 <jeff> Topic: Process 2020 candidates
15:42:28 <mchampion> q+ to discuss the meta-question of timing, success criteria
15:43:25 <jeff> FR: I consider #28 assigned to myself
15:43:41 <jeff> q+ to propose that we drop the 2020 label from #60
15:44:16 <jeff> DS: I should ping LW and WS for #130
15:44:43 <natasha> q+
15:45:10 <jeff> DS: Natasha, can you take #157
15:45:23 <jeff> NR: Yes, working with PLH
15:45:47 <jeff> DS: #168, please look at wiki
15:46:02 <jeff> DS: #173, actively on the table at the AB
15:46:37 <jeff> ... Jeff do you agree?
15:46:48 <jeff> Jeff: I agree it is on the table at the AB
15:46:55 <jeff> MC: Can we get this done for 2020?
15:47:06 <jeff> DS: I think we can make substantial progress
15:47:14 <jeff> ... cleanup
15:47:21 <jeff> ... but we may not complete the job
15:47:33 <jeff> FR: Are we in general agreement that I can make a pull request
15:47:42 <jeff> ... removing gratuitous requests
15:48:34 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/182
15:48:38 <jeff> Jeff: Certainly can make pull requests, but may not be ready to implement them yet.
15:48:48 <jeff> DS: #182 assigned to FR.
15:48:53 <jeff> FR: Yes; after #28
15:49:26 <jeff> DS: #223 is actively being discussed by the AB; should leave it there for now
15:49:32 <jeff> ... Jeff do you agree?
15:49:35 <jeff> Jeff: Yes.
15:49:42 <florian> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+project%3Aw3c%2Fw3process%2F1+-label%3AProcess2020Candidate
15:49:48 <jeff> FR: I have triaged a bunch into the Project 2020 project
15:50:07 <dsinger> q?
15:50:11 <dsinger> ack mch
15:50:11 <Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to discuss the meta-question of timing, success criteria
15:50:16 <natasha> ack natasha
15:50:38 <jeff> MC: Are we committed to a process document once per year, or more success oriented
15:50:47 <jeff> ... seeing so little participation
15:50:53 <jeff> ... only 3% voting at all
15:50:54 <florian> q+ to respond to mchampion
15:51:05 <jeff> ... we should at least ask what the success criteria are
15:51:13 <jeff> ... we should make a conscious decision
15:51:21 <jeff> ... not a great deal of enthusiam
15:51:38 <jeff> DS: I'll take the action to notify the AC.
15:51:47 <jeff> ... people can comment asynchronously
15:52:16 <cwilso> q+ to say I'd like to see more NON-AB on this call
15:52:18 <dsinger> q?
15:52:26 <dsinger> ack jef
15:52:26 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to propose that we drop the 2020 label from #60
15:52:45 <cwilso> ack c
15:52:45 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say I'd like to see more NON-AB on this call
15:54:37 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60
15:54:49 <cwilso> q+ to suggest fatigue is a real issue
15:54:51 <mchampion> +1 to dropping issue 60, it is irresolveable
15:54:57 <jeff> Jeff: In answer to Mike, I think we should be success oriented
15:55:06 <dsinger> q?
15:55:08 <dsinger> ack flo
15:55:08 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to mchampion
15:55:23 <jeff> FR: A yearly update is tricky
15:55:37 <jeff> ... a delay was unfortunate
15:55:40 <dsinger> zakim, close queue
15:55:40 <Zakim> ok, dsinger, the speaker queue is closed
15:55:44 <dsinger> q?
15:55:52 <jeff> ... low response was unfortunate
15:55:58 <jeff> ... as editor I joined late
15:56:08 <jeff> ... hope to do more this year
15:56:19 <jeff> ... large pile of small fixes are worthwhile
15:56:44 <jeff> ... avoid holiday season
15:57:07 <cwilso> strong +1 to avoiding holidays
15:57:09 <dsinger> ack cwil
15:57:09 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest fatigue is a real issue
15:57:44 <jeff> CW: +1 to avoid holiday season
15:57:51 <jeff> ... regular cycle is a good idea
15:57:58 <mchampion> q+ to suggest we agree on success criteria up front, e.g. which issues MUST be addressed in next Process Document, and not publish again until we resolve  them or explicitly decide they are irresolvable
15:58:03 <jeff> ... easier to keep on regular cycle
15:58:14 <jeff> ... what kind of issues do you want
15:58:23 <jeff> ... half the issues "need AB feedback"
15:58:34 <jeff> ... looks like you want the discussion in the AB
15:58:41 <jeff> ... harder to get others involved
15:58:46 <jeff> ... we need more not on the AB
15:58:53 <jeff> ... only 2 of us
15:58:58 <jeff> ... problematic
15:59:17 <jeff> DS: Mike do you want to make your point?
15:59:21 <jeff> MC: ^^
15:59:46 <jeff> DS: Don't want Process doc like patent policy - sacred item that cannot be touched.
15:59:52 <jeff> ... next meeting 13 March
16:00:02 <jeff> ... April call should be rescheduled
16:00:16 <jeff> [adjourned]
16:00:21 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/13-w3process-minutes.html jeff
16:01:48 <florian> github-bot, end topic
16:02:24 <florian> just noticed that we had during some of the conversation failed to use the github bot right
16:03:12 <florian> just pasting a link to a github issue lets us talk about that issue, but doesn't do anything. the link needs to be prefixed by "github:" to
16:03:25 <florian> to make the bot know that we want it to post something to github
16:03:38 <florian> documentation here: https://github.com/dbaron/wgmeeting-github-ircbot
16:03:42 <florian> better luck next time
16:05:14 <jeff> seems I should step down as scribe
16:06:06 <florian> :) I do sign up to do it once it a while, but I'm rarely very happy with my performance...
16:06:59 <florian> that may mean I need more practice, but in the meanwhile, it makes for rather poor minutes.
16:09:19 <florian> well, we can edit github comments manually after the fact if something got there that shouldn't be
17:41:23 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
18:00:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
18:15:53 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process