14:00:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:00:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/05/27-w3process-irc
14:00:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:05 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:00:31 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #w3process
14:01:07 <dsinger_> present+ dsinger
14:01:13 <dsinger_> zakim, who is here?
14:01:13 <Zakim> Present: dsinger
14:01:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see fantasai, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeff__, dsinger_, tzviya, timeless, florian, github-bot, cb, tink, misalias_, astearns, cwilso, Mek, trackbot, notwseltzer, weiler
14:01:48 <cb> cb has left #w3process
14:02:33 <jeff__> present+
14:02:43 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:03:02 <cwilso> present+
14:03:15 <jeff__> scribe: jeff
14:03:21 <pal> pal has joined #w3process
14:03:26 <fantasai> present+
14:04:13 <jeff__> David: Today we hope to wrap up the process
14:04:21 <jeff__> ... doubt that we'll get more from the AC
14:04:34 <jeff__> ... no new issues filed since agenda was proposed
14:04:39 <dsinger_> https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/P2020-issues
14:04:41 <jeff__> ... only 404 added since AB discussion
14:04:50 <jeff__> ... any other issues for today?
14:05:08 <jeff__> ... anything else to be discussed?
14:05:16 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
14:05:21 <jeff__> Florian: We should discuss that which we will ask PSIG about
14:05:25 <chaals> present+
14:05:27 <jeff__> ... do we have a consensus?
14:05:32 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:05:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/05/27-w3process-minutes.html chaals
14:05:37 <jeff__> David: So we'll look at 403.
14:05:47 <jeff__> ... anything else
14:05:51 <jeff__> Topic: #388
14:05:54 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/388
14:06:20 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/388#issuecomment-632730884
14:06:22 <jeff__> ... I've tried to put together the final comment on 388
14:06:29 <jeff__> ... responsive to comments
14:06:41 <tzviya> as chair of PWE - there has to be clear direction about how to move forward and clear communication to those involved in ancillary groups. I do not think simply decoupling cepc is sufficient because then there is no guidance
14:07:02 <jeff__> ... Tzviya's comment ^^
14:07:13 <jeff__> Florian: My position is consistent with that
14:07:25 <jeff__> ... there may exist a better way for CEPC, Ombuds, etc.
14:07:28 <dsinger_> q?
14:07:33 <jeff__> ... we should spend time exploring
14:07:35 <cwilso> q+
14:07:48 <jeff__> ... in the interim, some clear guidance is helpful
14:07:59 <jeff__> ... rules written here are consistent with our behavior
14:08:05 <dsinger_> q?
14:08:09 <jeff__> ... we should adopt this and keep the issue open for next year
14:08:10 <dsinger_> ack cwil
14:08:16 <jeff__> ... I think that is consistent with Tzviya
14:08:29 <jeff__> Chris: Key is to realize that CEPC was painful
14:08:39 <jeff__> ... authority came from AB, but AB was late with comments
14:08:49 <jeff__> ... we can't have the AB drop its authority
14:08:53 <jeff__> ... we need to do it better
14:09:04 <jeff__> ... not leave PWETF out to dry
14:09:08 <dsinger_> q+
14:09:15 <jeff__> ... the AB should delegate to some other body
14:09:18 <fantasai> s/drop its authority/delegate its authority entirely to an unelected group of people/
14:09:23 <jeff__> ... hence proposed changes are fine
14:09:24 <florian> +1 to cwilso
14:09:29 <tzviya> +1
14:09:30 <jeff__> ... should not do more this
14:09:33 <jeff__> q+
14:09:38 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:09:55 <jeff__> s/this/this year/
14:09:55 <plh> q+
14:10:00 <chaals> [+1 to telling the AB to be more communicative and directly involved rather than delegate and then complaining]
14:10:11 <jeff__> Jeff: I'm okay with that if we also adopt the changes in issue #404.
14:10:14 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/404
14:10:17 <jeff__> David: I agree with Florian
14:10:18 <cwilso> [+1 to Chaals' comment]
14:10:27 <jeff__> ... ultimately the AB's responsibility
14:10:33 <jeff__> ... buck must stop somewhere
14:10:40 <chaals> [I prefer not to change the text for 2020 because I don't see it improves things. This won't be an objection to hold up consensus. I think the responsibility lines are already there]
14:10:42 <jeff__> ... but agree that we should delegate CEPC to experts
14:10:46 <dsinger_> q?
14:10:49 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:10:52 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:11:05 <chaals> [+1 that the next revision should actually consider a different mechanism for managing CEPC]
14:11:23 <jeff__> PLH: One minor improvement is to acknowledge where the documents are currently developed
14:11:29 <jeff__> Fantasai: As a note?
14:11:35 <jeff__> PLH: Could be a note
14:11:41 <jeff__> David: In a process doc?
14:11:44 <chaals> q+
14:11:49 <jeff__> Fantasai: Helps people find things
14:11:54 <jeff__> David: Anyone object
14:11:55 <jeff__> ?
14:12:01 <dsinger_> q?
14:12:05 <dsinger_> ack cha
14:12:29 <jeff__> Chaals: I'm concerned that putting stuff in process doc related to groups with fixed charters is tricky.
14:12:40 <jeff__> PLH: Add language that it is "as of now"
14:13:01 <jeff__> Florian: I'm neutral.  Might not be the ideal time since we need to discuss it still.
14:13:05 <dsinger_> "Note: as of June 2020 the Patent Policy is developed in the PSIG and the CEPC in ... CG"
14:13:09 <jeff__> PLH: Leave it to the editor.
14:13:09 <dsinger_> q?
14:13:15 <jeff__> David: Comments on text?
14:13:30 <jeff__> ... no comments?
14:13:39 <jeff__> Florian: Proves it is the right language
14:13:46 <jeff__> Fantasai: I agree with your changes
14:13:53 <jeff__> ... @@@ issue #404
14:14:08 <jeff__> David: Are accepting this with addition of note?
14:14:12 <jeff__> +1
14:14:15 <cwilso> +1
14:14:17 <plh> +1
14:14:26 <chaals> [For the record I vote against, but without standing in the way of consensus]
14:14:36 <jeff__> ... so we can document that the process is done in this CG
14:14:37 <fantasai> +1
14:14:45 <jeff__> ... Chaals, why are you voting against?
14:14:53 <jeff__> Chaals: I don't think it is an improvement
14:14:59 <jeff__> ... changes the lack of clarity
14:15:07 <jeff__> ... rather leave it out and come back next year
14:15:11 <jeff__> ... leave as is for now
14:15:16 <jeff__> ... not a strong objection
14:15:26 <jeff__> David: Tzviya was asking for more clarity this year
14:15:34 <jeff__> ... other thoughts on this?
14:15:41 <jeff__> ... thanks Chaals.  Understood and move on.
14:16:02 <dsinger_> resolved: accept the language in teh comment and add a note documenting where the docuemnts are developed
14:16:32 <jeff__> Topic: #404
14:16:35 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/404
14:16:36 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/404
14:16:55 <jeff__> David: Florian, explain your spelunking
14:17:14 <jeff__> Florian: I understand why Jeff wants to make sure that the Director is in the loop
14:17:28 <jeff__> ... but the definition already involves the Director.
14:17:42 <jeff__> ... unless it is unclear, I'm not strongly convinced.
14:17:44 <jeff__> q+
14:18:20 <dsinger_> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#ReviewAppeal
14:18:33 <jeff__> [Florian reads from 7.1]
14:19:12 <jeff__> Florian: It doesn't say that the Director can decide something else.
14:19:25 <jeff__> Fantasai: So we should accept David Singer's working
14:19:35 <fantasai> dsinger's wording: A W3C decision is one where the Director decides, after exercising the role of assessing consensus of the W3C Community after an Advisory Committee review.
14:19:45 <jeff__> David: It is ambiguous.  Is he ratifying the AC decision or is he deciding based on the AC?
14:19:52 <jeff__> ... is he just a rubber stamp?
14:19:52 <dsinger_> q?
14:19:55 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:20:06 <dsinger_> q?
14:20:13 <jeff__> ... can he decide in the absence of a consensus?
14:20:26 <jeff__> Florian: I'm OK with the clarification if people think it is needed.
14:20:35 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/404#issuecomment-634069934
14:20:36 <jeff__> Fantasai: It is obviously not clear right now.
14:20:41 <dsinger_> q?
14:20:50 <dsinger_> q?
14:20:53 <jeff__> David: Proposal is ^^
14:20:55 <fantasai> +1 to the proposal
14:20:57 <jeff__> ... Comments?
14:21:05 <jeff__> Fantasai: We should accept the proposal.
14:21:11 <dsinger_> resolved: adopt the text in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/404#issuecomment-634069934
14:21:12 <jeff__> David: No objections, we should accept.
14:21:29 <jeff__> ... we are cooking along, this is great, I love it.
14:21:33 <jeff__> Topic: #402
14:21:53 <jeff__> Florian: This could take a while
14:21:57 <jeff__> Topic: #403
14:21:57 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/403
14:22:07 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/403
14:22:31 <jeff__> Florian: Anyone here who wasn't at the AB?
14:22:36 <jeff__> Jeff: Pierre is.
14:22:45 <jeff__> Pierre: Hard stop at top of hour
14:22:49 <jeff__> All: All of us do
14:23:02 <jeff__> Florian: Summarizes #403
14:23:28 <jeff__> ... emphasize that informative notes that announce a proposed change are effectively a WD
14:23:33 <jeff__> ... but not qualified as such
14:23:47 <jeff__> ... people who leave the group will not make commitments
14:23:47 <fantasai> s/such/such for the Patent Policy/
14:23:50 <dsinger_> I agree that we need to document the 'amendment material' as a Working Draft
14:23:54 <dsinger_> q?
14:23:57 <fantasai> s/commitments/commitments as they would on a WD/
14:24:01 <fantasai> s/people/Member/
14:24:04 <jeff__> ... proposal to recognize these a WD's
14:24:08 <jeff__> q+
14:24:17 <jeff__> Fantasai: We should accept the proposed changes
14:24:22 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/403#issuecomment-632285395
14:24:25 <jeff__> ... subject to PSIG being OK
14:24:44 <jeff__> David: Any onjection
14:24:47 <dsinger_> ack jef
14:24:55 <fantasai> jeff__: I agree with fantasai that we should accept this
14:24:57 <chaals> q+ to ask that this is reviewed by PSIG first, if they are delegated responsibility for patent policy
14:25:07 <fantasai> jeff__: But also if PSIG pushes back, don't need to block Process 2020
14:25:14 <fantasai> dsinger_: I hope they don't. Will need to discuss if they do
14:25:15 <jeff__> s/onj/obj/
14:25:35 <fantasai> florian: I think it would be an unfortunate loophole if we don't fix this, but not fatal
14:25:50 <fantasai> dsinger_: If they disagree, we
14:25:50 <chaals> q-
14:25:52 <jeff__> David: If they throw a wrench we'll have a discussion
14:26:07 <jeff__> ... we close; PSIG meets; wrap up meeting on the 10th
14:26:17 <dsinger_> resolved: we support the text in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/403#issuecomment-632285395 pending PSIG discussion and acceptance
14:26:23 <dsinger_> q?
14:26:44 <jeff__> Topic: #402
14:27:04 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/402
14:27:04 <jeff__> David: Pierre, can you introduce - nomenclature and practical
14:27:24 <jeff__> Pierre: The objective is to have a perpetual CR
14:27:29 <jeff__> ... no objection to that concept
14:27:49 <jeff__> ... name is misleading.  It is not a Candidate REC - it will never be a REC
14:28:09 <jeff__> ... SoTD does not communicate accuracy
14:28:17 <florian> q+
14:28:22 <jeff__> ... indicates that it does not have endorsement of Membership
14:28:31 <plh> q+
14:28:34 <jeff__> ... trying to clarify what those perpetual CRs mean
14:28:44 <jeff__> ... external and internal groups know how to reference
14:28:48 <jeff__> ... I have three questions
14:29:06 <jeff__> ... 1. Does a perpetual CR represent consensus of Membership
14:29:16 <jeff__> ... 2. Is it a WIP or a complete work?
14:29:42 <jeff__> ... 3. Does it need to demonstrate any implementation experience
14:29:49 <dsinger_> chair encourages everyone to read a CR SOTD section, example is here https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/CR-ttml-imsc1.2-20200324/
14:29:54 <jeff__> ... don't object to concept, but want clarity on those questions.
14:30:05 <jeff__> David: Please look at SoTD for a CR ^^
14:30:16 <fantasai> "has been reviewed by the W3C Community and has the endorsement of its sponsoring Working Group, but does not have the endorsement of the full W3C Membership"
14:30:23 <fantasai> would be an improvement
14:30:29 <fantasai> and more in line with what we need here
14:30:43 <plh> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/blob/master/p2020mockup/cr-6.2.8.1.html
14:30:52 <plh> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/blob/master/p2020mockup/cr-6.2.8.2.html
14:30:56 <jeff__> [David and PLH quibble about what a typical SoTD should say]
14:31:21 <dsinger_> q?
14:31:29 <jeff__> Pierre: Still says "does not imply endorsement"
14:31:36 <dsinger_> ack fanta
14:31:36 <jeff__> David: Other background?
14:31:54 <jeff__> Fantasai: We should change SoTD to better describe what it is.
14:32:02 <jeff__> ... should say that it has the endorsement of the WG
14:32:17 <jeff__> ... still does not have endorsement of the membership (no AC review)
14:32:22 <dsinger_> q?
14:32:23 <jeff__> ... can say reviewed by W3C community
14:32:26 <dsinger_> ack floria
14:32:30 <jeff__> ... can say has support of sponsoring WG
14:32:31 <chaals> q+ to suggest given two kinds of thing we should have two status options
14:32:42 <jeff__> Florian: Whether CR is an end state or not?
14:32:53 <jeff__> ... any CR publication is not an end state
14:33:05 <jeff__> ... even perpetual CRs will be revised forever
14:33:22 <jeff__> ... as long as technology keeps moving, the CR is a moving target
14:33:32 <pal> q+
14:33:32 <jeff__> ... no antipathy to REC, but too much happens at CR
14:33:38 <jeff__> ... some groups will move to REC
14:33:41 <dsinger_> q+ to talk about 'draft document'
14:33:49 <jeff__> ... others will be at CR for a long time
14:34:01 <jeff__> ... should be retired if done and not a REC
14:34:06 <jeff__> ... naming is hard
14:34:18 <jeff__> ... It is not endorsed
14:34:22 <jeff__> ... It is a WIP
14:34:35 <jeff__> ... Some will move forward; some will not
14:34:37 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:34:39 <jeff__> ... so process is OK
14:34:57 <jeff__> PLH: Pierre has a point that CR is a broad name
14:35:12 <jeff__> ... keep issue open and push after some experience, for P2021
14:35:23 <jeff__> ... Boilerplate SoTD needs to be improved
14:35:28 <jeff__> ... Glad it is getting attention
14:35:46 <jeff__> ... It is not a consensus of Membership.  That requires moving to PR.
14:35:56 <jeff__> ... Represents consensus of WG
14:36:06 <jeff__> ... even on the content
14:36:26 <jeff__> ... (as opposed to WDs which only have consensus to publish)
14:36:35 <jeff__> ... LS community want to look at WIP
14:36:53 <jeff__> ... does not need to demonstrate implementation experiene if a CR
14:37:00 <florian> q+ to comment on implementation experience
14:37:01 <jeff__> ... although they may have it
14:37:13 <jeff__> ... In WHATWG; only has implementation commitment
14:37:23 <dsinger_> ach cha
14:37:36 <dsinger_> ack cha
14:37:36 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest given two kinds of thing we should have two status options
14:37:36 <jeff__> Chaals: Boilerplate is good enough
14:37:47 <dsinger_> s/ach cha//
14:37:50 <jeff__> ... the non-boilerplate stuff needs attention
14:38:01 <jeff__> ... 2 approaches
14:38:29 <jeff__> ... those that aim at RECs and those that aim at a document that the WG can mess around with at will - but not prepared to get formal W3C review
14:38:48 <jeff__> ... In my world, the latter meets the criteria for a Note
14:38:59 <jeff__> ... should make that distinction clear
14:39:39 <jeff__> ... working towards an endstate (given that we have no versioning approach)
14:39:45 <dsinger_> q?
14:39:49 <jeff__> ... and distinguish to the other type of CR
14:39:49 <dsinger_> ack pal
14:40:16 <jeff__> Pierre: The AC can object to a CR transition
14:40:25 <jeff__> Florian: Anyone can object to anything
14:40:38 <jeff__> Pierre: Is CR announced on AC list?
14:40:46 <jeff__> ... if you did that, it would have the consensus of the AC
14:40:56 <jeff__> Fantasai: The AC is not paying attention.
14:41:04 <dsinger_> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#candidate-rec
14:41:07 <jeff__> Pierre: Can provide a formal opportunity to object
14:41:22 <jeff__> David: Grounds for objection are limited to meeting criteria for CR
14:41:39 <jeff__> ... other than that you cannot refuse a CR
14:41:44 <jeff__> ... not as strong as with PR
14:41:54 <plh> q+
14:42:00 <jeff__> Pierre: Only exception is implementation experience
14:42:08 <jeff__> Florian: And AC Review
14:42:17 <jeff__> PLH: And that you have closed all of your issues
14:42:22 <jeff__> Pierre: True for CR
14:42:23 <dsinger_> "the question of whether the - specification is appropriate to publish as a W3C Recommendation."
14:42:47 <jeff__> ... we are so close - why not add an AC review for a perpetual CR
14:42:50 <jeff__> q+
14:43:05 <jeff__> ... if we put it before we are just moving goalposts
14:43:30 <jeff__> Pierre: I have a real issue with a formal publication explicitly state that it does not have endorsement
14:43:42 <jeff__> Florian: It does not have endorsement
14:43:56 <dsinger_> q?
14:43:57 <jeff__> David: We only ask for endorsement at REC at PR
14:44:01 <dsinger_> q+ later
14:44:06 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:44:10 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:44:10 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to talk about 'draft document'
14:44:16 <dsinger_> ack flo
14:44:16 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to comment on implementation experience
14:44:23 <dsinger_> q+ to discuss 'draft document'
14:44:35 <jeff__> Florian: If we put an AC review before CR we would give them a month
14:44:43 <jeff__> ... introducing a one month delay
14:44:50 <jeff__> ... we will then have fewer CRs
14:45:01 <jeff__> ... or push things to other places
14:45:12 <jeff__> ... if a group wants W3C endorsement they need to ask for it.
14:45:14 <jeff__> q-
14:45:33 <jeff__> Pierre: But it has a W3C logo, hence an implied endorsement
14:45:39 <dsinger_> ack fanta
14:45:44 <jeff__> Florian: Also EDs, WDs
14:45:49 <jeff__> Pierre: Clear not final
14:45:56 <jeff__> Fantasai: CR is also clear
14:47:35 <fantasai> fantasai: CR is not definitively not going to REC. We have processes to maintain living standards as RECs as well as in CR.
14:48:09 <fantasai> fantasai: A group could decide it wants W3C endorsement 10 years later, and that its spec is stable enough that it's content to maintain the extra requirements of REC for that, and transition its LS from an CR to a REC
14:48:38 <florian> fantasai: I think we need to update the status section to say that it does have the endorsement of the WG
14:48:44 <dsinger_> zakim, close the queue
14:48:44 <Zakim> ok, dsinger_, the speaker queue is closed
14:49:04 <dsinger_> q?
14:49:07 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:49:14 <jeff__> PLH: To respond to Pierre
14:49:26 <pal> q+
14:49:28 <jeff__> ... CR may have open substantive issues that get opened
14:49:42 <jeff__> ... Director does not require that you address them to update the CR
14:50:04 <jeff__> ... Move the AC review forward into the process - the LS people want updates at any time
14:50:23 <jeff__> ... You are moving burden from PR to CR; but people don't want that burden
14:50:35 <jeff__> ... there is a price to get the consensus of membership
14:50:37 <dsinger_> q?
14:50:42 <jeff__> ... not all groups willing to pay the price
14:50:59 <jeff__> Pierre: Just trying to help perpetual CR more formal
14:51:12 <jeff__> ... SoTD also says that it is inappropriate other than a WIP
14:51:19 <dsinger_> q?
14:51:21 <jeff__> ... people will want to reference CSS
14:51:32 <jeff__> Florian: CSS will not be a perpetual CR
14:51:41 <jeff__> Fantasai: We should remove the sentence.
14:51:54 <jeff__> Florian: Really? It is a WIP
14:51:55 <cwilso> +1 to fantasai
14:52:01 <jeff__> Fantasai: Does not need to be cited as such.
14:52:10 <fantasai> "This document is a work in progress, and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time."
14:52:17 <fantasai> instead of "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. "
14:52:21 <jeff__> David: We often call this a "draft"
14:52:25 <jeff__> ... CR has a lot more status
14:52:34 <jeff__> Fantasai: I proposed wording
14:52:45 <jeff__> David: I'm not convinced we should alter the process and change the name
14:52:52 <jeff__> ... does anyone disagree?
14:53:08 <jeff__> ... some docs get constant trickle of additions (e.g. DOM)
14:53:10 <florian> +1 for working on SoTD, not changing the Process
14:53:18 <jeff__> ... maybe perpetual CR is OK
14:53:22 <jeff__> q+
14:53:26 <chaals> [I think we should alter the process, not just tweak the Status Section]
14:53:35 <jeff__> ... If people need a REC they should just ask.
14:53:40 <dsinger_> zakim, open the queue
14:53:40 <Zakim> ok, dsinger_, the speaker queue is open
14:53:53 <fantasai> -1 to editing the Process, +1 to improving SOTD
14:53:55 <jeff__> ... does anyone think we need to edit the process document
14:53:57 <fantasai> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/
14:54:35 <dsinger_> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#maturity-levels
14:55:22 <jeff__> Florian: Can't tweak the process.  Adding an AC review, though, would be a major change
14:55:41 <fantasai> s/Can't tweak the process/Can tweak the wording to clarify/
14:55:43 <jeff__> David: The process text for CR should match the SoTD
14:55:58 <jeff__> PLH: Should we open an issue to iterate on boilerplate
14:56:08 <jeff__> David: Yes
14:56:28 <jeff__> ... not hearing changes for process text; but need to work on boilerplate
14:56:37 <jeff__> Chaals: We need to change the process
14:56:46 <jeff__> ... but not for 2020
14:57:04 <jeff__> ... will take some time
14:57:18 <jeff__> David: A hasty edit will be damaging, not helpful
14:57:25 <plh> I will open an issue for CR Draft boilerplate. Once we we narrow it down, we could open a separate one for CR Snapshot boilerplate.
14:57:55 <jeff__> [David puts note in issue to reflect above discussion.]
14:58:15 <chaals> s/not for/I doubt you would be happy to do the necessary work and accept the concomitant delays for
14:58:29 <jeff__> David: Anyone disagree - leave issue open, work on SoTD
14:58:32 <fantasai> plh, maybe do both simultaneously :)
14:58:37 <jeff__> ... no disagreement hence resolved
14:58:37 <fantasai> plh, we can handle two open issues. ^_^
14:58:57 <jeff__> ... big thanks to Florian and Elika for work to date
14:59:04 <jeff__> ... close to finishing
14:59:10 <jeff__> ... next meeting is June 10th
14:59:13 <cwilso> +1
14:59:21 <jeff__> Florian: Big thanks to chair and the crowd
14:59:25 <jeff__> +1
14:59:33 <jeff__> David: I enjoy working with you all
14:59:42 <jeff__> Fantasai: And the project manager as well
14:59:42 <plh> --> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/405 CR Draft boilerplate
14:59:46 <jeff__> David: And PLH
15:00:00 <jeff__> [adjourned]
15:00:08 <jeff__> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/05/27-w3process-minutes.html jeff__
15:00:41 <dsinger_> resolved: we keep 402 without Process changes this year, but turn our attention to improving the SOTD
15:00:52 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minu', fantasai.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:00:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/05/27-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:05:12 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
16:14:22 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #w3process
17:16:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
18:01:14 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process
18:38:36 <fantasai> fantasai has left #w3process
23:34:27 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process