<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
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
<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
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/241
<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
<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
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/244
<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]
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]