<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
dsinger: any concern closing evergreen-tagged issues?
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Evergreen
florian: did jeff want to keep 79 open?
jeff: yes
dsinger: let's take the Evergreen tag off 79
<dsinger> resolved to close all the Eevergreen issues except #79
RESOLVED
jeff: game plan for registries?
dsinger: I plan to read material from F&F
... and then come back
<dsinger> Florian works through PRs https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls
<dsinger> looking at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/365
florian: we've discussed that having extensible/expandable rec isn't a good term
... drop the term
... preserve the ability to state that recs do or don't change
<jeff> +1 to approve #365
dsinger: it retains the distiction but removes the word. is that helpful?
florian: it removes some text around chartering
... and just puts a sentence in the status section
<mchampion> +1 to the PR
dsinger: I could add the sentence at any state before Rec?
florian: yes
... and once at rec, you can't change without going back for review
plh: I sent email re workflow, doesn't affect this PR
<plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2020Jan/0014.html
dsinger: Propose to merge
<dsinger> agreed to merge
RESOLUTION: merge 365
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/364
florian: 364. Remove "Edited Recommendations"
<fantasai> +!
<fantasai> +1
<plh> +1
dsinger: it's a Recommendation. Let's label things with what they are, not how they got there
+1
dsinger: propose to merge 364
RESOLUTION: merge 364
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/364
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/363
florian: 363, remove "last call" text at CR
<dsinger> see <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/#sec-exclusion-with>
fantasai: we defined "Patent Review Draft" in Process
... remove this stray reference
... and then update in the PRD section
<fantasai> See https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#patent-review-drafts
<fantasai> "This Process defines certain Recommendation Track publications as Patent Review Drafts. These correspond to the “Last Call Working Draft” of the Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY]."
florian: suggest we skip this for now, in deference to Patent Policy
fantasai: I think this is a simple change
dsinger: we'll have to do a consistency pass with Process and PP
... leave it for now
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/346
<fantasai> fantasai: Nevermind, I misread it
florian: issue 346
<fantasai> fantasai: yes, need to keep 363 open until PP is updated
dsinger: close with no action?
<mchampion> 0 I won’t lay down in the road
cwilso: I also think this direction is a mistake
florian: this issue is saying go do evergreen
... is that what you want?
jeff: I disagree with Florian's interpretation
dsinger: perhaps the issue proponents should gather to discuss shared concern
jeff: we can just leave the issue open
dsinger: we can leave it open, without committing to address in Process 2020
... any other PRs or issues that need looking at
florian: not from my POV
<florian> https://github.com/w3c/w3process
<dsinger> here for ref is the ordinary DIFF <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2019%2FProcess-20190301%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F>
florian: look at the README
... it links some process diffs
... in sequence
... go through the diagonal of that table
<fantasai> Florian, can you copy this to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2020#Process_Document_Edits?
jeff: we need high-level explainers
<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2020#Process_Document_Edits
<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2020
jeff: why are we doing this, what are the changes in corresponding docs
<fantasai> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#changes
dsinger: get a draft summary for next CG call
tzviya: let's keep CEPC and its changelog separate
... even as we roll them out together
... don't ask for feedback in the same threads
jeff: so we send multiple emails on March 1?
tzviya: yes
florian: do we have something to replace Process obsolete link?
tzviya: disciplinary procedures under control of Director aren't covered in PWE
florian: My preference is still to delete that stale link
dsinger: I'd also like to remove stale link
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274
tzviya: fine with me
dsinger: what else do we need to discuss today?
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss registries
florian: I'll also update disposition of comments
... for things still open, should I tentatively mark as deferred?
dsinger: we have a massive cleanup to do
florian: those we moved to 2021, I'll mark as deferred
... and come with proposal for others
dsinger: back to Registries
jeff: can those engaged with the issue reach offline consensus?
... but what happens if they don't
... should we then just move Registries to 2021?
florian: "I can't realistically object to not doing something"
... but think we can do better
... Registries are new, won't break any existing thing
... even if doesn't get 100% right, we could roll it out without damaging existing things
... and then roll back later
... but if that doesn't get consensus, we shouldn't hold up
wseltzer: opportunity costs of doing something half-way,
... so rather just wait
... if we don't get consensus now
plh: don't hear a group pushing for immediate action
... don't rush it
dsinger: when I originally drafted, I aimed for minimal rules, see what develops as practice, and patch later
... start least-restrictive
... I think the draft goes the other way, aiming at a set of rules that could be relaxed
... 2 approaches
mchampion: +1 dsinger, start with experiement
<fantasai> s/experiment/experiment/
mchampion: if you can experiment without changing process, that's best
... there's already a lot changing
jeff: if we can get consensus, great
... if we can't, don't raise the likelihood of FO to P2020
fantasai: agree with most of what's been said
... in terms of exeriementation without changing process, many groups have been doing
... those frustrated are those who want something published on W3C
... official
dsinger: we've talked before about experimental process addendas
... might adopt an experimental addendum
florian: experiment could work, though wouldn't satisfy those who want formal status
... also can use this as a recruiting tool for Process CG
... if you don't like it, join us
mchampion: what do people want? Process, or publishing on /TR?
florian: they have been doing notes, they want something official
<plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2020Jan/0014.html
plh: I sent an email ^
... I'd like to get drafts of these docs
florian: looks reasonable
<fantasai> " Identify the specific proposed changes under review. "
plh: lmk if you have input
fantasai: ^
... mechanics of identifying specific changes could be tricky
dsinger: AOB
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
jeff: We've had some good discussions with PSIG
... including a good meeting on Monday
... making progress through PP
... If your company wants to get involved, contact wendy
<dsinger> actions: be ready to approve in Feb 12th call; review PLH email; prepare the explainer, DoC, etc.; review registries and try to find a way out
<scribe> Scribenick: wseltzer
<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2020#Process_Document_Edits