<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai
<dsinger> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2019Aug/0002.html
florian: I think multiple levels
of delegation isn't necessary
... PWE should have delegation directly from AB
... Anyone from Process CG interested, can participate in
PWE
... AB will review / approve
dsinger: I agree. Want to participate in CEPC development, join PWETF
jeff: wfm
RESOLUTION: CEPC out of scope for Process CG, join PWE to participate.
<dsinger> issue 262 v
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262
florian: We have a regular
process for discontiuing documents that reached REC
... Different statuses depending on why discontinued
... For docs that haven't reached REC, to discontinue, you turn
it into a NOTE
... You can describe what happened in the Status section, but
that's it
... ...
... Result of work on continuous development
... makes it necessary to be more clear about why something is
discontinued
<dsinger> I think it simply means “there’s nobody working on this any more” (perhaps we lost interest)
florian: Distinguishing between
obsolete, superseded, rescinded becomes necessary
... Particularly important because these documents that are not
yet REC have patent licensing associated to them
... So for now it's not urgent to fix, docs just need to be
clear in their Status section
... but as we progress with continuous development, need to be
clear
... Even if plh thinks for current purposes this isn't needed,
for ? it might be
jeff: Want to make sure I
understood what Florian is saying
... He said this is particularly applicable to Evergreen
... We could have similar use case with Everblue
... In Everblue, you take something to REC, then take it to CR,
then never take it back to REC
... the patent commitments for that CR don't kick in
florian: I don't think it's only
applicable to Evergreen, but it's more critical
... Because the spec isn't expected to go to REC
... If in REC, can use usual REC obsoletion method
... but relevant for both
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/303
<dsinger> (Need to be able to Rescind not-yet-REC REC-track documents)
fantasai: Obsolete and superseded
are informative distinctions
... Just makes status clearer to reader
... But rescinded has patent licensing implications
... Right now only RECs have patent licenses
... so OK
... But as soon as we have patent licensing on other statuses,
they also need to be able to rescind
dsinger: I agree that rescinded
and obsolete needs to be available to anything we
recommend
... If someone stopped work on something, but not necessarily
obsolete, just clarify that
... No longer actively working on it, nobody working on it
fantasai: So it might be obsolete, but you don't know
dsinger: Lighter weight than
obsolete
... We'll get back to it with plh
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/303
florian: Think we can close
it
... Just says it's bad, but no wording proposed to fix it
cwilso: I can take ownership of this issue.
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/309
florian: Currently, Process
defines how the Process is revised
... Nothing defines how CEPC or Patent Policy is revised
... This PR defines how they are revised
... and clarifies that Team should be in the loop
... 2 questions
... Is this phrasing fine?
... Is there more documents that should be in this list?
dsinger: Should we say "including but not limited to"?
florian: Don't want to imply that
Articles of Incorporation go through this process
... So too broad not great
... seems like only 3-4 docs, can just list them
dsinger: How is Membership Agreement revised?
florian: That's a contract,
revised when both parties agree
... If W3C (CEO) and counterparty want to change, they can
agree
dsinger: Doesn't become operational until both parties sign, but want everyone to have the same agreement
tink: Anti-trust policy
florian: Believe it's a little
different, but maybe because I didn't read recently
... Thought it's more like policy of how the Team behaves
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to disagree
florian: I think that's a difference
<tink> Anti Trust policy https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2017/antitrust-guidance
?: We should be careful how we characterize anti-trust policy
dsinger: Described as guidance,
not policy
... don't think it's the same, not describing new rules
here
jeff: I would not even want to
have a conversation about this topic unless we have wseltzer on
the call or some other lawyers
... Pretty sensitive stuff, not helpful for us to include more
stuff here.
dsinger: Should we accept PR or more time to review?
tink: lgtm
jeff: Raised originally for Director-free, but intent is to merge into Process 2020?
dsinger: Sooner rather than later, to be clear about CEPC
jeff: Probably CEPC will be revised before Process 2020, but that's fine.
dsinger: If we think this is roughly right, let's pull and go ahead
<dsinger> topic” #213 Clarify superseding <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/213>
RESOLUTION: Accept PR to define revision process for CEPC and Patent Policy in Process
Maybe need to wait for Nigel.
Deferred to later.
florian: fantasai filed, but I
agree
... Currently Process claims that when you update a CR, you
*have* to describe *every* change since the previous CR
... What we do in practice, and what probably is useful, is to
describe each *substantive* change
... Don't want to list each typo fix
dsinger: Maybe list which sections are changed?
fantasai: Don't want to explain
the editorial changes, it's make-work that's not useful
... Fine if you want to say 'There were editorial changes'
florian: Maybe say "substantive changes and the presence of editorial changes"
fantasai: Don't think it's needed
to be this complicated.
... It's a must-level requirement, let's make it clear and
minimal
... If you care if there were editorial changes that touched a
section, run a diff
dsinger: Do we even need to fix this?
florian: Background for issue was
requirement of documentation of changes in Evergreen
... and there was a reluctant to have this sentence differ for
EG and classic REC track, so it should be clarified here
first
tink: "must document substantive changes" + "If there were editorial changes, this can be noted as well."
dsinger: Seems we agree, just need to get the phrasing
dsinger: Can I remove Agenda+ from 79 and 168?
jeff: Why remove?
dsinger: Because if Agenda+ I
feel obliged to bring up on the next call. It's a flag that
means "I want to talk about this on the next call"
... once we talk about it, clear Agenda+. Want to talk about it
again, put Agenda+ back
florian: Think it's complicated
because most recent comments in 271 aren't relevant to the
title of the issue
... Most recent comment was "let's work on everblue"
... but answer to the initial question, I think should be "yes,
needs to state"
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/271
dsinger: Issue at end of 271, make a new issue
florian: We are working on everblue, that's a separate discussion
dsinger: Deferred, waiting for plh / active discussion
jeff: Coralie has published a
draft agenda
... I think that we are planning on having the module on
process stuff on Thursday afternoon
<jeff> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/ac-agenda.html#thursday
jeff: Wanted to, first, go deep
on continuous development material
... That's the most important, will have open AC polls at the
time as well
... So I think we need to make sure AC knows what we're doing,
gives us input
... So I think at the AB meeting fantasai and plh took lead,
imagine they would continue doing that
... That would take probably 40min
... Included in that discussion would be poll about the patent
policy
... Whether additional poll or not about Evergreen, working
team still need to discuss next few weeks
... Honestly, if this is a topic that the AC wants to spend
more time on and result in making less time available for other
process-related topics, would be OK with that
... Other two topics on the Agenda, thought dsinger can give a
general update on where Process2020 is going, time frames,
high-level
... Give AC clarity on which way to go
... And hopefully have routine work on Process 2020 and getting
Ever* details squared away
... getting all the reviews takes us into next year
... As another major topic, which deserves attention
<dsinger> yes, I need to describe where we are and why we aren’t presenting now, and what else is in there (in appropriate level of detail)
jeff: thought dsinger can cover
registries piece
... finally, Director-free
... since we've had some major discussions on it
... and have done a lot of work on it in the last several
months
... so fine to give an update on it
florian: Fine with agenda as
proposed
... Would say that I'm available to help with these topics
jeff: Part of method to
distribute among multiple presenters
... want to show the membership the range of support from
different Members: Team, IEs, large Members, etc.
dsinger: Deadline for slides is next 3 weeks or so?
jeff: General deadline is want to
have all slides available 2 weeks preferably, minimum 1week in
advance
... To let people translate/discuss/review the slides
dsinger: So Monday the
9th...
... So next two weeks
florian: I would not like to do
chairing right now, but note
... Many things, when we updated Process 2019, we distinguished
between now and later
... Some are issues marked 2020 not because we want to do them
this year, but because we didn't want to do them last year
jeff: Lot of issues here
... Would encourage chair to identify if there are anything
ripe for call for consensus
... and do that by email with a 2wk turnaround, maybe it's
possible to close
dsinger: OK, I will work on that with Florian
florian: Some issues can probably be closed as well. Let's go through them together.
dsinger: Yes, we should get the
issues list cleaned up before TPAC
... Ok, clean up by then, and hopefully some progress by
then
... Also I'll take on discussing registries with florian and
fantasai
... AOB?
<dsinger> AOB?
florian: Question for AB
members
... I believe, in Hoboken, we discussed and I think decided,
that we wanted to revise bit of Process that currently allows
the Director to change whatever after an AC vote
... to say that he has to say if he changed things that weren't
substantive
... and if there were substantive, to explain the rationale for
such changes
... Can't find the resolution
tink: Anything in the minutes that suggest such a discussion?
florian: Minutes very sparse
<mchampion> If it wasn’t recorded it didn’t happen!
dsinger: I also think we said
that if it was a substantive change, it's a Decision in terms
of the Process
... and could object
florian: If we had documented consensus it woudl be useful, but if not then can work from first principles
dsinger: Do you have an issue?
florian: I think there are issues about this
<jeff> https://www.w3.org/Member/Board/wiki/Agenda
jeff: We're assembling agenda for
next F2F in the wiki here
... I put down 90 min for Process 2020 in that meeting
... Among other things, possible there would be a draft Process
2020 ready for approval by mid-November
<dsinger> so as the bridge chair/AB member I want to know if there are things the CG want the AB to decide or discuss, please
jeff: ...
dsinger: Useful to tell Process CG, so if topics need to be proposed, can tell us and we'll put on AB agenda
tink: Regrets for next issue
<mchampion> Present?
Meeting closed.
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 there was a reluctant to have this sentence differ for EG and classic REC track, so it should be clarified here first/ Succeeded: s/acj flo// Succeeded: s/Assigne/Assign/ Present: florian dsinger jeff cwilson fantasai tink (Léonie) mike Found ScribeNick: fantasai Inferring Scribes: fantasai WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 14 Aug 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]