Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

08 May 2019


cwilso, jeff, david, fantasai, florian, mike, nigel, tzviya, dsinger, tantek
David Singer


<dsinger> wendy

I asked Wendy. She said that Marsha set it up. Marsha is looking into it.

<dsinger> it’s not the same as last time, that was off cycle

<dsinger> it’s linked from the agenda above

<dsinger> 1. Go to

<dsinger> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me47b8dca25fd84a43aff79071fed627d <https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me47b8dca25fd84a43aff79071fed627d>

<dsinger> 2. If requested, enter your name and email address.

<cwilso> Am mobile-only for next few minutes, will join after

<mchampion> And Google properties don't work in China

Let's try my ad hoc number

https://mit.webex.com/join/jaffej | 646 714 766

<dsinger> May 8th agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2019May/0000.html webex at https://mit.webex.com/join/jaffej | 646 714 766

<scribe> scribenick: jeff

<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting

<scribe> scribenick: jeff

<scribe> Chair: David Singer

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Agenda%2B

David: Low to high numerical order?

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

Issue #24

David: Process document is confused
... different rules

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

David: no defaults
... tried to fix
... should we make it consistent?

Florian: No strong preference
... inconsistencies are bad
... Mike said unify may and should

<cwilso> I'd prefer "may" also,.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24#issuecomment-421505889

Florian: baking in default rule undermines consensus

David: No, this is default rules
... look at my post
... default rules if you don't change them
... shall we insert

Florian: Alternatives is all charters must say something
... or are underdefined

David: Yes

Florian: I'm ok with that. makes voting annoying
... a feature!

DS: Others?

<mchampion> +1 to making voting possible, but "annoying" to enable

Nigel: If you want to discourage voting
... which is rarely used anyway
... make it a pain

Florian: So let's make it annoying.
... chairs can decide

DS: No groundswell for defaults
... so we will make it consistent but not insert defaults

Fantasai: Makes sense
... don't want threshold
... different kinds of decisions have different thresholds, e.g. we bias to no change when there's no consensus
... rules won't reflect how we work

DS: So concluded. I'm inserting a comment.

Nigel: Andreas' comment
... proposal is they can be adopted, but don't have to be in charter

<nigel> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24#issuecomment-349412331

Nigel: dec 5 2017

David: You are right.
... chair will need to be explicit
... that is a consequence

<cwilso> +1 to Jeff's comment. I can't even tell what the consensus is on this issue from the notes.

Jeff: Can we finish this one.

Florian: We need to resolve this and post to gh

RESOLUTION: accept Champion proposal, but not insert defaults

Florian: such as resolve and accept Mike's comment

<florian> this comment: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24#issuecomment-422474665

Fantasai: Link to the comment

RESOLUTION: Accept Mike Champion's proposal, but don't insert defaults

David: Skipping #79 (done last meeting)

issue - 235

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/235#issuecomment-471777210

Issue 235

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

<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/235

[David reads the issue]

[David reads Nigel's proposed addition]

David: OK?

Fantasai: Not just suitable, but intended to gather wide review

<cwilso> Why else would you do a WD?

David: Accepted with Nigel's comment?

<dsinger> how about we remove ‘wide’ from Nigel’s sentence?

<dsinger> Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the Working Group with respect to their content, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology. Nevertheless the Working Group decided to adopt the Working Draft as the basis for their work at the time of adoption.

Florian: David's text with Nigel's suggestion without Fantasai's addition

<dsinger> add: A Working Draft is suitable for gathering wide review prior to advancing to the next stage of maturity.

Fantasai: Can we see it? Multiple suggestions

Nigel: WDs are suitable for Wide review

<fantasai> wfm

<nigel> +1 to the text posted into IRC also

Florian: I favor ^^ text

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/235#issuecomment-490492799

David: Nigel wants "wide" in

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal above

Patent policy and TAG participation


<florian> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/241

Florian: Not that scary


<dsinger> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/241

Florian: TAG participation rules in 2.1 claims that PP applies based on section 3 and 4
... but PP has no such rules
... but we have language that allows the team to require commitments when needed
... so we can delete the reference

<dsinger> proposal in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/241#issuecomment-468832300

Jeff: Uncomfortable without PSIG input

David: I agree
... hard for chairs and team to monitor

<fantasai> jeff: I don't think the Team can be responsible for chasing down patent commitments in cases where IP may have been introduced by a TAG review

<fantasai> fantasai: +1

Florian: The alternative is a general patent requirement on the TAG
... but that would discourage TAG participation

Chris: Two things
... +1 to PSIG involvement
... I don't agree with Florian's comment that they will just have questions

Florian: No. I said mostly questions + we have a mechanism when they go beyond.

Chris: I'll defer to PSIG, but I'd be concerned for PP

Florian: We have rules
... I hope that it is infrequent so not a burden

Chris: I wonder how often that mechanism has been called into play.

Florian: I'm OK with asking PSIG

David: Happened recently.

Mike: What is broken?
... because PP doesn't mention TAG?

Florian: Process says "see TAG obligations in section 3"
... where it does not exist

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to propose an alternative that HR group members get an option to sign up to clear their contributions to any spec

Nigel: +1 to Florian
... alternative - HR groups get an option to sign up

Florian: As an option ok, but cannot require
... discourage large companies

Fantasai: Joining a WG is more than contributions
... as a TAG member, individual contributions less scary

David: I think that is implicitly the state now
... beyond that is farfetched

minor changes vs editorial changes

<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/243

<dsinger> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/243

<fantasai> dsinger, what's more likely than the company deciding to sue later for contributions they made, is that their patents get acquired by a patent troll and that patent troll then sues

Florian: "Minor" changes is used but not defined
... can be done without AC review with announcement and without explanation
... discussion about charter

<dsinger> proposal at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/243#issuecomment-485546203

Florian: there is wording that every agrees with but Wendy
... but her proposal still allows some things to be done without approval or notification

<nigel> Wendy's objection

Florian: which I think is wrong.
... not a good process

Jeff: Could there be common ground between you and Wendy

Florian: We tried a while ago
... but Wendy did not want the team held back by bureacracy
... but did not drive to conclusion
... she has a general dislike to defining it
... and I have a general dislike to not defining it
... this is a successor to a previous attempt
... I can try to talk to her again.

David: Let's try that

Member-visible is undefined


<dsinger> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/244

Florian: Single mention in process
... I wondered if it meant member-only
... but David said it meant "at least member visible"
... so we should make that more clear

<fantasai> sgtm

<mchampion> +1 to replacing it with a sentence

<fantasai> dsinger: "Must ve visible to at least the Advisory Committee representatibes"

Nigel: So it just needs to be clarified.

<fantasai> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#ACAppeal

Nigel: The language is idiomatic
... someone new might not understand it
... I thought it was Member-only

<fantasai> nigel pointed at "Member-visible" in RRSAgent's lingo as meaning "Member-only", as an example of such idiomatic usage

Jeff: Looking at 7.2 again, I think it should be Member-only

Fantasai: I think Member-only is OK, but it is phrased as "visible" rather than "only" because the focus of the sentence seems to be about making it visible to the Members rather than private; rather than about restricting its visibility
... that was the intent
... unless the person making the statement wants it to be public.
... but not automatic

Florian: I agree

<dsinger> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#Member-only

Florian: should clarify definition
... we never ban people from saying their own views publicly

Nigel: Then it should say Member-only or Public

Florian: Member-only or Public at discretion of commenter

David: The person making the appeal should not force the entire appeal into the open

Florian: They can't say their own opinion publicly?

David: They can't force others into the public

Florian: Let's make it Member only

<fantasai> Proposal is s/Member-visible/visible Member-only/

Florian: and clarify that people can always make their own comments public

Fantasai: The last is implied

David: Agreed

Fantasai: Proposal should be to replace member-visible with visible member-only

RESOLUTION: to change to “visible member-only”

Fantasai: want to emphasize that it is not private

<cwilso> it may already mean that, but it doesn't say that.

RESOLUTION: change to "visible Member-only"

Nigel: Are there no circumstances where the result of the appeal can be public?

Florian: Can we stay on this issue.

<dsinger> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/249

Nigel: I thought my comment was part of this issue.

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/249#issuecomment-473199841

Issue: Define WG Decision

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-183 - Define wg decision. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/183/edit>.

Florian: I want to define "Chair" decision; "WG" decision
... formal is chair decision
... latter is chair assessing consensus in a wg

<fantasai> +1 to Florian's proposal here

Florian: I'll make a PR

Nigel: Chairs definitely make decisions

Florian: My PR will clarify that both can be appealed

Nigel: Who will appeal a Chair decision?

Florian: A Formal objection against a Chair decision
... need to de-fuzzy-ify chair and WG decisions

<fantasai> Florian refers to https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGAppeals

David: Out of time.

<fantasai> which is titled "Appeal of a Chair's Decision"

<fantasai> but is about appealing WG decisions

<fantasai> This needs to be detangled

David: meet in two weeks
... please work on your assignments
... we should work on our milestones and schedule

Florian: Next meeting is Evergreen
... if Wendy and I agree can we also talk about #243?

David: [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. accept Champion proposal, but not insert defaults
  2. Accept Mike Champion's proposal, but don't insert defaults
  3. Accept proposal above
  4. to change to “visible member-only”
  5. change to "visible Member-only"
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/05/08 15:02:24 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/and it is never used/which is rarely used anyway/
Succeeded: s/decisions/decisions have different thresholds, e.g. we bias to no change when there's no consensus/
Succeeded: s/Even suitable/Not just suitable, but intended to gather wide review/
Succeeded: s/I wonder/I wonder how often that mechanism has been called into play./
Succeeded: s/ve/be/
Succeeded: s/it should also be visible/it is phrased as "visible" rather than "only" because the focus of the sentence seems to be about making it visible to the Members rather than private; rather than about restricting its visibility/
Present: cwilso jeff david fantasai florian mike nigel tzviya dsinger tantek
Found ScribeNick: jeff
Found ScribeNick: jeff
Inferring Scribes: jeff
Found Date: 08 May 2019
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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]