Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 12 Feb 2020

<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting

<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai

dsinger: Agenda-bashing?
... Didn't notice anything to change agenda, except maybe some messages just recently
... mostly mchampion's concerns?
... any changes to agenda?

[silence]

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AAgenda%2B

dsinger: ok, let's go through PRs and issues that we need to address

florian: Would like to formally recognize that every issue not currently tagged as Agenda+ (and not about registries) is being deferred to later Process cycle

dsinger: wfm, but let's check PRs real quick before resolving

Governing Documents

florian: Added some text about process for resolving CEPC and Patent Policy etc.
... but issue raised that calling them "governing documents" was misleading, since doesn't include Member Agreement, etc.
... so PR here is to remove the term "governing document"

<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/367/files

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/367/

dsinger: questions/concerns?

fantasai: looked OK to me

dsinger: I agree

RESOLUTION: Accept PR to remove term "governing document" from revising CEPC/etc. section

<dsinger> see also https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/355

jeff: Any comment from Wendy?

florian: Can't know for sure, but ...

dsinger: Can't be sure she's happy, but fairly sure she'd be happier, even if not completely happy
... Jeff, maybe you can check with her if she would want further edits

jeff: Sounds reasonable, can deal with follow-up at AB meeting

???

dsinger: remove Agenda+ label, stale issue

Reference to stale disciplinary document

florian: One way to deal with this is to delete reference, another to update the document, third way to worry about it later

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274

dsinger: On the call here, anyone have a strong opinion?

fantasai: no opinion

dsinger: resistance from chaals and nigel, so let's leave it there
... Maybe that puts pressure to actually fix it
... ok, remove Agenda+ label, won't fix yet

Revising a REC

<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/358

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

florian: My feeling is we made some simplifications already
... Either this is already addressed, or whatever bits not addressed, should address in next round of editorial fixes

jeff: I definitely feel this should be deferred
... my original comment was to make clear that you can have CR=FPWD

florian: that's a different issue

dsinger: you found this section confusing in Dec

florian: there's been changes, in the direction you wanted
... hopefully fixed, if not defer remainder of fix?

jeff: I proposed to defer to 2021 already, and Florian agreed

dsinger: OK, then we're removing Agenda+ and deferring
... any other opinion?

jeff: We'll go through AC review, I can reraise it in 2021 depending how things go
... I think we can close this for now

fantasai: so close or defer?

jeff: Have to discuss what we're planning to do in 2021, so maybe can leave it open

Steps to advancing to Rec

<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/352

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/355

s/Steps to advancing ot Rec/FPWD and CR at the same time

jeff: Seem to have some disagreement, so let's defer and leave it open

florian: I'm not convince we need to change anything in the Process here, but there seems to be an understanding that this exists so we either need to fix the Process or the understanding

fantasai: Same is true of the Patent Policy, btw; there's no concept of an FPWD that's also a CR.

florian: The patent policy FAQ seems to think it exists, but nothing implies that in patent policy

jeff: [summarizes some comments]
... If everyone agrees that you can have FPWD = CR ...

florian: I don't think you can, you can have CR 10 min after FWPD if you satisfy all the requirements
... but not have a publication that's both simultaneously

dsinger: I would like to close it. It's such a corner case, just do the transitions in quick succession.

fantasai: I support that, would like Patent Policy FAQ to not imply that this thing exists when it doesn't

jeff: then dependency on PSIG to close?

fantasai: Happy to close here, take action item to tell PSIG that this thing they assert exists doesn't exist in the Process so they need to remove the FAQ

RESOLUTION: close no change; convey conclusion to PSIG so they can update their documents

Next Topic

florian: no other issues / PRs to discuss

<dsinger> checking Pull Requests https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls

dsinger: Don't see anything
... will let editor fix spelling error
... please close that pull request one way or another

Forward document to AB and wider community

dsinger: Anything to discuss on this question?

jeff: I would recommend that we don't take the vote here, that we send a CFC to Process CG and give them 1.5 weeks to respond

florian: Didn't last time we said this time we would take the resolution and the last two weeks were for people to complain?

jeff: I feel that this important document, not having more than the 5 AB members, no opportunity from others who can't show up

dsinger: Anyone in this call today that disagrees with this consensus (to send document)?

fantasai: There were at least 2 people who sent in comments ahead of time on this issue
... so already an expectation that we would take this decision today

dsinger: Will issue a CFC on the final document, including the last couple PRs we merged
... I'll issue a CFC that closes before the AB meeting

fantasai: And if someone sends objection or comment? no other opportunity to address

jeff: AB can decide what to do

dsinger: it's their formal decision anyway

florian: I feel that we sufficiently socialied idea that we'd take the resolution today, so don't feel CFC is necessary, but don't object

<dsinger> we decide to (a) finish the Pull Requests (b) issue a formal CfC on the Process CG list, that (c) closes before the AB meeting and (d) leave resolution of any objections to the AB

jeff: anyone likely to object is probably an AC rep, can comment during AC review period anyway

<jeff> [but we should find out their objections earlier if possible]

<dsinger> but we note we have consensus on this call, where we advertized we would seek consensus

dsinger: formally we said we'd decide on the call, and we have consensus on this call

Any other business?

jeff: I propose that we meet weekly rather than biweekly during March
... and maybe ??
... and use that time to field AC comments as they come in
... and if early in March we don't have AC comments
... I think Mike has pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of review
... maybe do a walk-through section-by-section
... to help people understand
... Not sure even whole AB has done that
... could be constructive
... if we get lots of comments, we'll want to process them asap

<jeff> +1 to David's proposa

<jeff> l

fantasai: I would prefer to only schedule weekly calls if we need them, not otherwise

dsinger: Can say, be prepared for weekly calls, but decide on the week whether we need one
... and let's not start until March 11th

[dsinger and florian are afk, and unlikely to have that many comments by the 4th]

<dsinger> OK, the chair will send a message to the CG to be prepared for weekly calls if pressing matters come up. We’ll decide on a weekly basis; be prepared for the 18th, we’ll decide on the 11th

dsinger: We would normally have this discussion in the Fall, means we'll have a very short cycle for 2021
... We will only have a few months for Process 2021

jeff: Originally we though that Process 2021 would be just an edit cycle
... but I would really like to get a consensus about registries
... in my mind, for whatever reason, that's been resistant to consensus
... I'm not so sure we should worry so much about the schedule

dsinger: there's been some good debate on specific questions, so I'm hopeful

<scribe> ACTION: dsinger to send out CFC on Process document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Send out cfc on process document [on David Singer - due 2020-02-19].

<scribe> ACTION: dsinger to send warning about potential weekly calls in March

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Send warning about potential weekly calls in march [on David Singer - due 2020-02-19].

dsinger: Let's prep for 2021?

florian: I will need to compile the DoC, will have that effect

dsinger: OK, let's discuss in Hoboken

fantasai: wanted to mention that Florian and I can offer to have calls with anyone who has questions or wants a walk through; between the two of us we cover all the timezones

jeff: soon after AB meeting, we want to get out the actual call for review to the AC
... that requires a cover letter
... which requires a description of what's changed, what's the schedule, etc.
... we don't actually have to wait for AB meeting to start drafting cover letter
... between dsinger, fantasai, florian, know the scope of the changes
... in that letter, we can say, whoever wants to schedule meetings with fantasai or florian, can also reserve some times

dsinger: suggest getting this written up before the AB meeting, so AB can just approve it
... Any other comments?
... Congrats, we finished 10min early! And thank you for an intense six months of work amongs very fine people
... Hopefully rest of CG agrees we are done with Process 2020 :)

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2020

Attendees

Contents