Meeting minutes
<dsinger_> Proposed to close: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Close>
Issues proposed to close
dsinger_: After long discussion, decided logistics were very difficult if some comments confidential and some not
dsinger_: so we closed 39, effectively same issue
plh: Propose to close. We do encourage AC to put comments in GH. But we don't require, also have WBS form.
tantek: What I don't understand, I thought this was kinda moving forward in practice
tantek: what plh said, more charter comments in public channels
tantek: Maybe this is a phrasing challenge rather than something that's impossible
tantek: Is there something we can salvage here?
florian: Unsure that's the case. At least chaals and maybe others, were against WBS to be public.
dsinger_: Didn't want to split across public, private, and GH channels. Too many channels.
wseltzer: Thought it was more useful to have a formal acknowledgement of what we're trying to do in practice.
wseltzer: Several members wanted to raise comments in GH, discuss them there, with WG members proposing charter updates.
wseltzer: Trying to find a practical way to acknowledge that.
florian: I would be in support, but we were deadlocked.
florian: I wouldn't mind making progress if we can
dsinger_: Team isn't prohibited from improving practice even if Process is not hcanged
tantek: Team isn't stopped from using public channel
dsinger_: Not prohibited from making public channel in addition
florian: ...
tantek: Seems we are doing some charter reviews in public in practice, I feel that must at least acknowledge that.
+1 from fantasai
tantek: Either there should be a concerted effort to stop that (which I would oppose)
tantek: or we should [? audio cuts out ?]
dsinger_: There's a private AC conversation in the formal ballot, and a public conversation that anyone can have in GH
dsinger_: Do we need to confuse with a public AC channel?
florian: This is about formal comment as an AC
florian: anyone can comment in GH
dsinger_: Any AC member can cite GH comments if they want
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#ACReviewStart
fantasai: Agree with Tantek, acknowledge in Process that public comment is possible.
tantek: One way to close issue is to acknowledge existing practice. Not open-ended issue.
tantek: Candidate for 2021
tantek: Proposed to scope specifically to what's already implemented by the Team, and consider that wording for 2021
dsinger_: Can you summarize and retag, please?
plh: One of the rationale for doing public channel is because vast majority of groups are working in public
<tantek> can we poll the proposal / resolve here first?
plh: If have to discuss comments with WG, needs to be public
Resolution: Update Process wording to acknowledge existing practice of allowing public comment (through GH), although this is not the official AC comment.
Issue 63
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63
github: none
Good Standing
<wseltzer> +1 to close
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/76
fantasai: This is open in the AB. Shouldn't close.
fantasai: AB can discuss here if it wants. either way should tag to AB issue.
jeff: We're looking at Director-free.
jeff: Since related to overturning Director's decision, propose closing.
tantek: I agree with Jeff's reasoning, if we do Director-free then this issue becomes irrelevant.
<wseltzer> +1 to close
<jeff> [I'm OK with that]
fantasai: When are we implementing Director-free? I don't think we should close it. Don't need to prioritize to P2021, but don't agree to close.
dsinger_: OK, retagging to director-free
transitions to Obsolete/Superseded
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141
dsinger_: Waiting on Tantek for proposed wording, proposed to close otherwise...
dsinger_: tantek is on the call today :)
tantek: I thought y'all would do the work :)
florian: I don't disagree that this section is editorially improveable
tantek: ...
florian: We did decide that we wanted to make editorial improvements to Process to make it easier to read
florian: whether we want this particular issue to be tracked, idk
florian: assigning to Tantek seems one way to make progress on it
cwilso: I had this assigend to me because Tantek wanted to keep it open and wasn't participating at the time
Resolution: Assigned to Tantek to propose wording
CRUD/Snapshot Split
dsinger_: Can we finally close this issue?
wseltzer: Please do!
Resolution: Close
Document management for DF
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/366
florian: This should be assigned t ome
dsinger_: Should close then
fantasai: [quotes Léonie's comments]
dsinger_: What else is there?
florian: Process, patent Policy, Member Agreement, various other things
fantasai: Does not need to be tagged to P2021
fantasai: explicitly not about the Process, so shouldn't be tagged P2021 :)
<tantek> Proposed: Document (in the Process) existing public comments practices (e.g. GitHub comments) as allowed and encouraged for wider review of charter proposals and revisions.
None
Public Charter Reviews
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38
<tantek> Per previous discussion in today's process CG call: Proposed: Document (in the Process) existing public comments practices (e.g. GitHub comments) as allowed and encouraged for wider review of charter proposals and revisions.
<florian> +1
+!
<plh> +1
+1, but I already typed that in as our resolution
<jeff> 0
<dsinger_> Proposed explicitly to defer: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Defer>
github: noe
github: none
Deferring Issues
jeff: Aren't we closing all the ones?
dsinger_: They're in an amorphous state
<tantek> state if not taggeds: accepted2021, deferred2021, unknown2021
<tantek> untagged = unknown right?
jeff: Why not explicitly defer?
fantasai: If someone comes up with a proposal, should feel free to bring it up for discussion and possibly fold in to P2021
<dsinger_> Proposed as important, worth delaying to get: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Priority>
Priorities
<dsinger_> Proposed as important, worth delaying to get: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Priority>
dsinger_: Basically, 5 issues on Registries
dsinger_: Getting rid of Director-free mentions that are largely editorial
florian: Not planning to prioritizeDF generally, but want to fix cases where Director is doing things like announcing, etc.
florian: prevents excessive rebasing of the DF branch
dsinger_: And also editorial streamlining
dsinger_: Agreed we focus on these?
jeff: Wondering, given so many posts on 130, if we should prioritize
dsinger_: You're right
<wseltzer> [you have widely divergent proposals on how to address it]
florian: Should definitely work on it. If we fail to come to consensus, should we block?
jeff: Identifying as priority doesn't tie our hands.
jeff: If we truly fail, we fail.
jeff: We pulled Registries at the last moment last year because didn't have consensus on it, eg..
weiler: I think we're getting close to there
weiler: Argument about what needs to be specified, but end goal is becoming clear
Candidate Topics
<dsinger_> Proposed that we handle if they finish in time: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Candidate>
florian: What does it mean to disagree that something is a candidate?
dsinger_: more likely we should add to this list rather than remove
dsinger_: A number of these fall under editorial simplifications
dsinger_: Do we need to discuss these?
dsinger_: For candidates would like to have assignees
fantasai: These are basically proposed as "we think we can do this in P2021, if someone works on them, so here's stuff might want to work on"
dsinger_: Maybe will triage with florian and jeff
florian: There are a few untagged that I wish to do, but no confidence could be done
dsinger_: ok, Florian and I will discusss
PRs
<dsinger_> Editor’s start on the cleanup, pull requests, and so on. <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls> etc.
florian: Many are old, and some of them like registries, don't make sense to discuss on the fly
florian: Gratuitous mentions of Directors, though, I think it's clean.
florian: I would like to merge
florian: Don't want this to drag on for weeks/month, it's a lot of work to rebase that branch every time we change something else
dsinger_: OK, explicit request to everyone to review this PR, make sure it doesn't change the sense of the Process
florian: Meant to do two things.
florian: Some places where Process says "Director decides X", and then references 'Director's decision'. Just removing that secondmention of Director
florian: Then others where "Director announces"
florian: Doesn't need to be Director, so switching to Team
jeff: Reviewing right now
<tantek> Just reviewed in GH
dsinger_: Not going to execute this PR this week, good to do next week
jeff: Agree we should pull gratuitous mentions
jeff: 2nd one (quotes text)
jeff: You're removing because by definition, Director resolves the FO?
florian: right
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/254
<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/420
githb: none
Another PR
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/420
jeff: General obsevation, maybe group editorial fixes into one PR to review as a set?
florian: Maybe, but then again for DF, I did this 1.5 yrs ago, and the fact that it was being massive delayed it being reviewed.
<jeff> [another time, other considerations]
dsinger: Thisseems trivial
florian: Since ppl say Process is too long, mentioning when AB and TAG were created seems unnecessary
fantasai: let's accept
Resolution: Accept PR
<dsinger_> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274
Reference to Stale Discipline Doc
<dsinger_> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274
florian: AB discussed updating document rather than removing link
florian: but we're still linking to a confidential document that's not up to date
dsinger_: I propose Team moves this somewhere visible so we can see it and maybe update it
florian: chaals did a clean-up of the document to make it not wrong
florian: so we might have a way forward?
florian: Seems like Team action to get this cleaned up
jeff: I propose we assign to me
Something
dsinger_: Leave to the editor
florian: I don't care either way
florian: Coralie prefers one way, you prefer other way
florian: so I don't know how to move forward
dsinger_: Defer to editor
tantek: agree
Resolution: Defer to editor
Something Else
dsinger_: I will look for issues assigned, proposed text
dsinger_: so get your ideas rolling. This is time for creativity
dsinger_: Next meeting is August 12th
tantek: Do we want that much time between meetings, or schedule one in 2 weeks?
florian: This week is oddly scheduled due to conflicts
dsinger_: Time for serious offline work
florian: To prompt merging of DF fix, should we say we'll merge unless ppl disagree?
DF Cleanup
Resolution: we will merge PR 254 (Director-free cleanup) unless someone sees a problem, at the next meeting
<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274
Scheduling
dsinger_: Usually we submit for review at TPAC, is that same schedule ?
jeff: Seems unrealistic. Just sumbitted P2020 for AC ballot
jeff: So we will slip compared to normal schedule
dsinger_: So spring AC like we did this year?
jeff: I think what we really need to do is to come to ground on how we'll solve Registries
jeff: That's the priority item for this year, along with HR
jeff: 130 is a great conversation
jeff: Registries is stalled
jeff: need to restart that before going back to AC
dsinger_: OK, will make that priority for next meeting
tantek: Want to make more progress on DF
fantasai: Plan was to do not so substantial fixes to DF for 2021
fantasai: Do more substantial work on branch for later
<jeff> [tantek, agree, please check AB agenda as well]
dsinger_: continue discussing in AB, if something is agreed and solid will pull into Process cycle
dsinger_: Thanks, see you next month hopefully with offline progress to discuss
Meeting closed.