<jeff> I suppose I am also in the wrong room.
<jeff> I am in 646 166 938
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
dsinger: anything to add to the agenda?
[sounds of violin]
dsinger: Tantek raised an issue
at TPAC, I've been discussing with Florian
... I'll continue to discuss with Florian
... re Registries
... and I'll return then
... Living Standards
Florian: we last met before
TPAC
... fantasai and I added Teal to Everblue
Florian: we talked to people at TPAC and heard support in broad terms
<fantasai> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/
Florian: we need people to review everblue branch ^
<fantasai> diffs at https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/
Florian: and file issues
plh_: glad to see that
update
... as I'm talking with WGs about charter renewals, some are
really hoping for Evergreen progress
... very important that we deliver something
... I defer to Wendy re Patent Policy
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
jeff: I'd like to mention three
things
... Reveiw schedule and dissent
... Think it's great that Florian and fantasai have updated
Everblue
... Put in IRC , but should go to Mailing List
... I would encourage them to put this branch on the ML for the
entire W3C Process CG can review asap
florian: Will do.
jeff: In terms of schedule
... There's an AB meeting Nov 18-20
... I would like the AB to basically have a very thorough
review of EverTeal at that point in time
... and our next Process CG meeting, Nov 13 is just 3 days
before AB
... I think it would be highly desireable if we have a conensus
on Nov 13
... as PRocess CG, where we want to take this
... That can lead into AB discussion
... and maybe we can get consensus of AB?
... That's important, among other things to move forward
... But as Wendy's about to say, PSIG wants to write patent
policy
... but wants clarity from us on where they're going
... so we need to get that done in Nov
... or else we will lose weeks/months
... Third point is dissent
... I would like the Process CG to be aware that at least one
member of AB thinks we're moving too quickly
... and not sufficiently well worked out yet
... Would be useful if Process CG figures out today that
direction that fantasai/florian/jeff/plh have been advocating
is the right direction
mchampion: I wanted to ask plh
whether the feedback he's heard from WGs that they want these
changes
... do they specifically want EverTeal, or some kind of Living
Standard, or Evergreen, or what are ppl saying they want in the
Process?
... to make the chartering process easier
<jeff> Fantasai: Service workers very excited about new direction
<jeff> ... MS2ger also interested if his work is in a functional WG
<jeff> ... haven't spoken to others
<jeff> Florian: Clarification new direction = ET
<jeff> Fantasai: Yes
mchampion: So EverTeal should be
a reasonable middle ground to keep work at W3C, still needs
Patent Policy changes
... ?
... That would be adequate for these groups?
fantasai: I believe so, yes
florian: I would also say that the Patent Policy changes are nice, but not required for the rest of EverTeal to work
fantasai: So we can write the Process to work with both policies, and can hook in the new policy when it's ready
mchampion: But will that be enough, without the patent policy?
<jeff> Fantasai: Won't be enough without PP enhancements
<jeff> ... can deploy process changes before PP if needed
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to disagree re coupling and to discuss PSIG
<jeff> Mike: thanks
wseltzer: PSIG is willing to work
on updating Patent Policy
... as soon as we offer a target to work towards
... They're not eager to do multiple patent policies
... what we will require from Patent Policy will depend on what
we put in the Process
... As fantasai suggested, I do think that for many of the
groups who are interested in continuous development
... the patent policy changes are critical to making it work
for them
... in particular, not requiring to get to REC before getting
commitments
florian: Not sure how deep to
go
... PSIG has indicated they want to do this, yes
... fact that they can't start, not so true
... they have been given a list of issues to answer in July,
still haven't answered
... but they aren't blocked on us, blocked on their choice to
wait
... They resolved to review the questions they were asked in
August, and then did not do that
dsinger: I think they're just
confused about direction we're going in
... Let's get the clarity that they want, and we want, and we
can resolve the problem
... Living Standards have periodic patent exclusion
opportunities, why wouldn't EverTeal require that?
<jeff> +1 to David
florian: Full benefits aren't
realized without patent policy changes
... but if we don't have a new patent policy in time, mechanics
can still work
... but you don't get patent commitments until REC
<jeff> -1 to Florian's assertion that this would be enough
[instead, you just get exclusion opportunities linked to promises, as now]
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about exclusion opps
florian: You don't get the benefits of the whole package without the whole package, but then, you can have part of the benefits with part of it
dsinger: I thought the
presentations at TPAC were confusing
... I also don't think we're giving them clean Living
Standards, it's still REC Track
... I'm concerned we will lose people
... so really would like to present to AB such that AB and
Process CG are satisfied
... So if simple explanation can be made to PSIG and
AB...
... That's my concern
jeff: Want to endorse what
dsinger just said
... I always thought we'd need a separate track to make clear
the Evergreen
... but survey, 19/40 of members who responded to survey did
not want a separate track
<mchampion> +1 to what David said, we need a crisp explanation of how Everteal+PP changes meets the demand for "Living Standards"
jeff: so now supporting EverTeal
as a result
... would like to make clear, that if you want a relatively
pure LS thing, explain how to do it
... as a guide
dsinger: ... experiment with new
patent policy ...
... not entirely diagnostic
<dsinger> the results had 25 saying “Experiment by allowing Working Groups to opt into the new patent policy via their charter, while letting those that haven't opted in use the old policy.” with 29 saying “Replace the current Patent Policy with the new one for all Working Groups.”
florian: I think a lot of ppl
were also in favor of experimenting a new patent policy
... but not in favor of a separate track
[florian and dsinger discuss question]
dsinger: but way ahead is clear,
have process text, let's get that in front of ppl
... add a clear explainer
... to help me, PSIG, everyone else
<jeff> +1
dsinger: Anything more on
Evergreen, Everteal, Registries, etc.?
... Amazing, didn't consume entire call
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299
florian: Not clear atm what can
be objected to
... this makes it clear that any decision described in the
process can be objected to, unless specifically handled
otherwise (e.g. AC Appeal)
... issue was raised in context of Director-Free, but not
really coupled to it
dsinger: I've read it, and I'm ok with it
fantasai: lgtm
jeff: Seems to be history that ties this back to chair appointments, #281
<tink> LGTM
jeff: today, a chair has to be
appointed, even a simple appointment like a chair retired from
their company and wants to continue as Invited Expert
... How would that work here? Is that a decision that can be
objected to?
florian: Yes
jeff: So we propose to AC we're
going to make a decision
... then AC can say we don't think that's good, we need to
bring to Director or to Council that this is a mistake?
florian: No, not a suggestion
that there shoudl be an AC review
... Just says that any decision that *has* happened can be
objected to
<jeff> Now, I understand. -1.
florian: Not really new, but
implied, so trying to make it clearer
... Given it's supposed to be a clarification, not a change,
what is your objetion?
jeff: Things which in my mind, solving problems that have not happened in reality, don't want to add bureaucracy
<mchampion> +1 to not solving problems that don't have real world examples
florian: This doesn't add any bureaucracy. Just clarifies whether your'e allowed to send an email "I object to this"
jeff: I think subjecting things to objetions... might land in Council. Going to tie ourselves in knots
florian: Your disagreement makes
it more important that we clarify this
... if we don't have a general agreement of what can be
objected to
... then needs clarification
... I thought any decision could be objected to
jeff: Let's say we have a WG that
has two chairs, work for two companies, each use two different
browser engines
... and one changes to other browser engine, does that mean can
object?
dsinger: Need to read the text. Can object to the decision, has to be a decision to object to.
jeff: ...
dsinger: We're trying to be clear here
florian: I'm not attempting to fix anything, I'm attempting to know whether it's possible right now whether it's possible to objet to any particular decision
dsinger: Let's discuss at next call, so people can read the actual proposed text
tink: Wondering in Jeff's use case, is decision change in browser engine, or decision to appoint chair?
dsinger: I didn't think this was
worth spending that much time on
... move back into GH, get concerns there
jeff: ask ppl to read dsingers'
comments from August 12
... We had resolution to work on this as part of Director-free
branch
... In answer to tink's question, I was making a rhetorical
point
... if we think that we want to make it possible to object to
Team chair assignments
... then might need to open up a broader assignment about how
chairs are chosen and ojections to that
<dsinger> agreed, we labeled #281 as Director-free-specific; Florian has later realized that’s not necessarily true
jeff: including W3C decisions and
things outside W3C
... things that happen outside W3C are more impactful in my
experience
dsinger: If we can't resolve in next meeting, then will need to defer the issue
weiler: As an observation,
there's not a process for appealing a chair appointment
... but is possible to object to various decisions of the
chair
... as those build up, ppl appointing chair will get a memo
<jeff> Fantasai: You will not get it if chairs fail to make decisions
<cwilso> agrees it should be possible to object to chair appointment.
fantasai: but can always email W3M
<jeff> David: We are talking about appointing chairs.
florian: should get details in
GH
... but want to clarify I am *not* trying to make a process for
objecting to chair appointments
... Want to ask if all decisions in the Process can be objected
to
... If not, then maybe no Formal Objection is possible unless
we're in an AC REview
... Or if we want something in between, need to be clear which
ones
jeff: Anything that can be objected to should be listed explicitly in the Process, if not clear, then clarify that one
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/325
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/325
dsinger: what to do?
florian: I think the Process is
not where we do philosophy
... so I think we should close this no change
<dsinger> +1 to florian
dsinger: To me the Process
defines how the engine works
... Not basic principles behind how the engine works
<mchampion> +1 to closing the issue
tink: Not objecting, but are we sure nothing in these principles would have an impact on the way the engine works?
florian: That's why I don't want to include, because I'm worried that it might
<mchampion> I discusses some of the potential problems this raises in the GItHub issue
dsinger: E.g. insistence on
democracy, vs us being director-led consortium
... Principles belong in governing documents, not Process
... So closing on those grounds
RESOLUTION: Close #325 no change
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262
dsinger: [quotes
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262#issuecomment-544825147]
... Is this what we mean by discontinued?
... should we put in process?
florian: I would push back on
timing
... you could already link to relevant section of the Process
from your use of "discontinued"
... But I think we need to change how discontinuing is done
generally, so rather not worry about phrasing this section just
yet
... Lack of clarity in this issue wasn't about the Process, it
was lack of clarity in the document
fantasai: ...
florian: Also, clarifying the word "discontinue" wouldn't necessarily help, that document could have used "abandoned"
<dsinger> so, we conclude: accepted in principle, but we need to work on where this goes (there is existing text on stopping work, for example)
florian: problem was not linking to the section of the Process that it's talking about, not that word is undefined
<dsinger> akc tink
<Zakim> tink, you wanted to disagree and say I think we should clarify the phrase.
tink: I think it's worth clarifying
dsinger: Yes, but need to handle in right place in process
florian: We already have a sentence. It uses the word "cease" rather than "discontinue".
tink: We have clearly defined statesof a spec, and "discontinued" is not one of them
florian: This is not a REC that
had been superseded, obsoleted, etc.
... It's a spec pre-REC that gote turned into a NOTE
... There is a section in the Process
<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/?status=ret
florian: that talks about this
tink: There's no clear state.
florian: We should create statuses for this, but there will be more than one status
dsinger: taking offline for Florian and I can work on it
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141
cwilso: Haven't done anything on this yet
dsinger: Hopes? expectations?
cwilso: yes, unlikely before mid-NOv
florian: Overlaps with previous topic we just discussed
dsinger: Please look at issues
offline, triage the issues
... Particular attention to [...]
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/334
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/328
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/326
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/324
... Please let us know if we should address sooner rather than
later
wseltzer: Linked to charter
review process, I commented on that
... email sharing our input on practices
... I propose we close those issues
florian: I propose we don't, but not enough time for why
jeff: Recommend Chair puts us on
a schedule
... once we finalize registries and ever*
... draw a circle around it, move everything else to Process
2021
... More minutiae that we add to Process 2020
... more likely some AC rep will object, delay the big things
like ever*
dsinger: yep
... next call Wed Nov 13th
... i"ll be on vacation
fantasai: could change it to Nov 6th
<plh> wfm
<cwilso> 6th is better, 13th is okay
dsinger: ok, someone else can chair if needed on the 13th
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/?/dissent/ Succeeded: s/excited/interested/ Succeeded: s/Mke/Mike/ Succeeded: s/oops// Succeeded: s/sorrryyyy// Present: dsinger wseltzer florian weiler jeff tink plh_ mchampion fantasai cwilso Léonie (tink) Found ScribeNick: fantasai WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <fantasai> ... Found ScribeNick: wseltzer Found ScribeNick: fantasai Inferring Scribes: fantasai, wseltzer Scribes: fantasai, wseltzer ScribeNicks: fantasai, wseltzer Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2019Oct/0006.html Found Date: 23 Oct 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]