IRC log of w3process on 2020-08-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:59:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:59:36 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:37 [Zakim]
Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
13:59:37 [dsinger_]
zakim, start meeting
13:59:37 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:39 [Zakim]
Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
13:59:44 [weiler]
14:00:00 [dsinger_]
14:00:11 [dsinger_]
present+ florian
14:00:26 [jeff]
14:00:57 [wseltzer]
14:01:32 [koalie]
koalie has joined #w3process
14:02:12 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
14:02:18 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: state of P2020
14:02:27 [wseltzer]
... anything we need to know, do?
14:02:33 [cwilso]
14:02:38 [wseltzer]
jeff: we're moving forward
14:02:43 [plh]
plh has joined #w3process
14:02:52 [wseltzer]
florian: we have a published ref to reference
14:02:56 [jrosewell]
jrosewell has joined #w3process
14:03:05 [jrosewell]
14:03:14 [plh]
14:03:49 [koalie]
present+ Coralie
14:04:10 [wseltzer]
plh: are you continuig to make edits?
14:04:20 [wseltzer]
... since I took a snapshot
14:04:20 [plh]
14:05:13 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: agenda-bash?
14:05:24 [wseltzer]
14:05:43 [wseltzer]
Topic: 4) Issues and PRs tagged agenda+.
14:05:53 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: 4.1) Discipline; we were working on the text at the last meeting
14:06:00 [koalie]
14:07:12 [wseltzer]
florian: there was sugestion that insertion could be confusing in context
14:07:22 [wseltzer]
... that was from fantasai, and we haven't heard from her
14:07:41 [wseltzer]
... a new, publicly available document regarding discipline
14:07:48 [wseltzer]
... from Coralie
14:08:02 [koalie]
14:08:13 [wseltzer]
koalie: W3M has developed guidance on procedures for removing individuals from groups in rare instances
14:08:21 [wseltzer]
... ^ guidebook resource
14:08:48 [wseltzer]
... we'll announce it to members and chairs
14:08:54 [dsinger_]
14:09:23 [wseltzer]
florian: sounds ok to me
14:09:35 [dsinger_]
14:09:46 [wseltzer]
... if Process delegates to Director, and this is how director will act
14:09:54 [wseltzer]
plh: goal to document
14:10:24 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: should we link to these guidelines, and Process text
14:10:30 [dsinger_]
ack ds
14:10:31 [wseltzer]
... re guidelines...
14:10:33 [wseltzer]
florian: I support
14:10:38 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: mostly supportive
14:11:24 [wseltzer]
... but is it CEPC-specific
14:11:40 [wseltzer]
plh: it doesn't say CEPC
14:11:50 [wseltzer]
florian: might be a question for AB review
14:11:55 [plh]
s/say/restrict to/
14:12:00 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: consensus here that this doc is good enough to link to?
14:12:04 [wseltzer]
... any objections?
14:12:19 [wseltzer]
... hearing silence, link it.
14:12:21 [wseltzer]
... thanks koalie
14:12:30 [wseltzer]
plh: I'll link from /guide as well
14:12:44 [weiler]
14:13:04 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: is the glitch solved?
14:13:19 [wseltzer]
florian: works for me, but I wasn't the one who raised the issue
14:13:50 [dsinger_]
14:13:52 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: fine to leave for next week
14:13:58 [wseltzer]
14:14:05 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: will we address 312 at the same time?
14:14:11 [koalie]
14:14:42 [wseltzer]
jeff: 312 introduces additional topics for Director-free
14:14:49 [wseltzer]
14:14:50 [koalie]
14:14:54 [fantasai]
fantasai has joined #w3process
14:14:58 [wseltzer]
... so leave it for the AB project
14:15:09 [koalie]
14:15:18 [wseltzer]
florian: note in 312 that it's partially addressed by this PR
14:15:30 [koalie]
14:16:03 [fantasai]
14:17:24 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: propose we continue offline
14:17:52 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: 428
14:17:56 [koalie]
[coralie departs]
14:17:58 [wseltzer]
... plh, you wanted to keep it open
14:18:12 [wseltzer]
florian: I updated
14:18:20 [koalie]
koalie has left #w3process
14:18:23 [wseltzer]
... note re no way to update Rec normatively
14:18:50 [wseltzer]
... ambiguity wrt whether team can/can't make proposed corrections
14:18:58 [wseltzer]
... as it's class 2, clarify they can
14:19:27 [wseltzer]
plh: need to review
14:19:40 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: First meetings, 434
14:19:58 [wseltzer]
florian: we had a discussion and resolution in the AB
14:20:14 [wseltzer]
... we have a requirement for 8 weeks between announcement and meeting
14:20:19 [wseltzer]
... for physical meeting
14:20:56 [jeff]
14:21:23 [wseltzer]
... but under current process, you could have a proposed charter, and meet sooner than 8weeks after approval
14:21:57 [dsinger_]
14:22:42 [jeff]
14:22:47 [plh]
14:23:18 [weiler]
14:23:26 [dsinger_]
ack plh
14:23:52 [wseltzer]
wseltzer: this seemed to me overly constraining, especially when groups are just resolving minor wording issues in charters
14:24:07 [wseltzer]
... and they plan toward a pre-existing meeting, such as TPAC
14:24:14 [wseltzer]
... I haven't seen AB resolution
14:24:30 [wseltzer]
plh: so are you saying groups under discussion now can't plan for TPAC
14:24:40 [wseltzer]
florian: this year, not a problem with virtual
14:24:45 [jeff]
14:25:01 [wseltzer]
... but saying you can't make plans before the group exists
14:25:23 [dsinger_]
14:25:29 [dsinger_]
ack weil
14:25:40 [dsinger_]
q+ to talk about getting approvals to join
14:25:49 [wseltzer]
weiler: when I think about how specs are being incubated, can imagine a CG sayig
14:26:01 [wseltzer]
... "we want to have a meeting" whether as a CG or WG
14:26:24 [wseltzer]
... does this mean they can't meet if thinking about chartering?
14:26:31 [wseltzer]
florian: you can't meet as formal WG meeting
14:26:54 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: you can have a CG meeting, not one making WG decisions
14:27:31 [plh]
q+ to mention that decisions are async nowadays
14:27:48 [dsinger_]
14:27:50 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: e.g. decision to take up a new WD
14:27:51 [dsinger_]
ack jef
14:28:04 [jrosewell]
aren't these examples of issues for the chair(s) of the group to be empowered to decide upon? If the chair makes a decision that the members of the group disagree with can't they address that via another route?
14:28:12 [wseltzer]
jeff: sounds as though this conversation supports informal meeting at TPAC
14:28:26 [weiler]
weiler: what is a WD decision? What sort of decisions could/should an incubator group not make?
14:28:33 [wseltzer]
... but the text says "informal meetings should not be planned to get around this restriction"
14:28:52 [wseltzer]
... maybe remove that text from PR?
14:29:21 [dsinger_]
14:29:23 [wseltzer]
florian: the AB had said no exception for TPAC, because some peoople don't travel to all TPACs
14:29:44 [wseltzer]
jeff: I thought I was hearing agreement here that groups could meet informally
14:29:57 [wseltzer]
florian: no, I'm not agreeing that
14:30:24 [weiler]
14:30:50 [wseltzer]
... disagree with setting social pressures that start the group informally and then make others come in later to object
14:31:13 [dsinger_]
14:31:17 [dsinger_]
ack ds
14:31:17 [Zakim]
dsinger_, you wanted to talk about getting approvals to join
14:31:19 [wseltzer]
plh: but it's too easy to evade that restriction, just pick another name
14:31:54 [dsinger_]
ack plh
14:31:54 [Zakim]
plh, you wanted to mention that decisions are async nowadays
14:32:00 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: speaking from personal experience, I can't get formal approval to join a group before its charter is finalized; can't start internal approval process
14:32:04 [wseltzer]
... and that takes time
14:32:25 [wseltzer]
plh: that's why we earlier set the time from the time the charter was sent for review
14:33:09 [wseltzer]
... also, all of our decisions are now taken asynchronously, confirmed offline
14:33:29 [weiler]
14:33:35 [wseltzer]
florian: but social pressures not to go against consensus, or not object and make us change travel plans
14:33:36 [weiler]
14:33:36 [jeff]
q+ to discuss "really hard to go against the pre-agreed consensus"
14:33:37 [dsinger_]
ack fanta
14:34:09 [wseltzer]
fantasai: not sure how much practical distinction between formal and infrmal meetings
14:34:22 [wseltzer]
... also exception if all participants agree, right?
14:34:32 [wseltzer]
... that should still be allowed
14:34:33 [wseltzer]
14:34:34 [dsinger_]
14:34:39 [dsinger_]
ack wei
14:34:40 [wseltzer]
q+ re ordering of exception, rule
14:35:12 [wseltzer]
weiler: fantasai seems to capture my sense of pre-existing group wanting to meet
14:35:32 [dsinger_]
that have not yet been chartered,"
14:35:37 [wseltzer]
... florian, are you describing a case where people would want to participate in WG but have been avoiding prior incubation?
14:37:57 [dsinger_]
14:39:08 [dsinger_]
ack jeff
14:39:08 [Zakim]
jeff, you wanted to discuss "really hard to go against the pre-agreed consensus"
14:39:43 [wseltzer]
14:40:48 [wseltzer]
jeff: I think the description of social pressure is not fully aligned
14:41:02 [wseltzer]
... there are also long-term incubations
14:41:28 [wseltzer]
... and remote participation is now usually possible for those who can't arrange travel
14:41:32 [dsinger_]
14:41:48 [wseltzer]
... we shouldn't block those who are available from meeting
14:42:02 [jeff]
+1 to David's suggestion
14:42:10 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: maybe we should say that short-scheduled meetings should be open, not restricted to those in the WG
14:42:14 [wseltzer]
plh: +1 to that
14:42:25 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: think we need to consider how to bring to AB
14:42:44 [jeff]
14:42:52 [wseltzer]
[I added my comments in ]
14:42:58 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: discontinued
14:43:25 [wseltzer]
... suggest addition to the Status indicating why discontinued
14:43:50 [plh]
14:43:52 [wseltzer]
florian: alternative, not create a new term, and just describe in status
14:43:59 [dsinger_]
ack plh
14:44:10 [wseltzer]
plh: today, we can mark doc retired
14:44:33 [wseltzer]
... obsolete, superceded, rescinded, so they disappear from default /TR view
14:44:38 [wseltzer]
... and also docs that become WG notes
14:45:01 [wseltzer]
... from publishing perspective, we should ask those publishing the docs to describe their publications
14:45:36 [wseltzer]
florian: this issue triggered by someone confused about what the status section means
14:46:07 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: look at the issue.
14:46:28 [wseltzer]
florian: if we add the sentence, then use "discontinued" consistently
14:47:01 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: fine to uise the definition, without the word, too
14:47:30 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: substantive changes to charter
14:47:36 [fantasai]
Topic: Substantive changes to charter
14:47:45 [wseltzer]
... ready to go?
14:47:47 [fantasai]
14:48:18 [wseltzer]
florian: still have some concern
14:48:50 [cwilso]
14:48:55 [jeff]
14:49:01 [cwilso]
14:49:12 [wseltzer]
... when a charter is substantively changed director must seek re-review
14:49:31 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes v2
14:49:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
14:49:58 [wseltzer]
jeff: I said essentially, it's a judgment call
14:50:13 [wseltzer]
... if we don't want to leave it there, requires an enumeratioin of all cases, which is quite difficult
14:50:31 [wseltzer]
... dsinger_'s approach enumerated examples, but not claiming to be a comprehensive list
14:50:38 [dsinger_]
14:50:39 [fantasai]
14:50:41 [dsinger_]
ack jef
14:50:41 [fantasai]
14:51:15 [wseltzer]
florian: if the Director can make changes without telling anyone, we need to know what those cases are
14:51:30 [wseltzer]
... maybe in all cases, Dir must announce
14:51:49 [jrosewell]
14:51:50 [wseltzer]
... and then it's okay to have more leeway
14:52:23 [wseltzer]
... Dir must document rationale
14:52:59 [dsinger_]
14:53:02 [wseltzer]
14:53:04 [dsinger_]
ack jrose
14:53:13 [wseltzer]
^ Guide on managing changes to charters
14:53:40 [wseltzer]
jrosewell: should we focus on processes for Director-free future instead?
14:53:47 [weiler]
jrosewell++ for optimism
14:54:00 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: we're trying not to introduce new Diretor instances
14:54:13 [dsinger_]
14:54:16 [wseltzer]
jrosewell: we could park things as not making it worse
14:54:23 [wseltzer]
florian: this is still open in Director-free
14:54:30 [wseltzer]
... Formal Objections go to the Council
14:54:46 [wseltzer]
... we haven't yet resolved whether they can only say yes/no, or make changes
14:54:48 [wseltzer]
... we could pund
14:55:00 [wseltzer]
14:55:13 [wseltzer]
Topic: P2021 milestone
14:55:25 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: please look at the milestone ^
14:55:46 [wseltzer]
... Registries, I'm working to simplify what Florian and Fantasai wrote
14:55:50 [wseltzer]
... hope to have for next meeting
14:56:05 [dsinger_]
14:56:06 [wseltzer]
... please share input.
14:56:48 [wseltzer]
florian: can we look at 438, editorial PR?
14:57:32 [wseltzer]
14:57:47 [wseltzer]
introduces new terms for future reference from Dir-free
14:59:21 [wseltzer]
fantasai: +1 to the PR, with Chaals's revision
14:59:29 [jrosewell]
14:59:51 [dsinger_]
15:00:05 [wseltzer]
jeff: think we need substantially shorter note
15:00:53 [wseltzer]
fantasai: take PRs on the note. it derived from substantial discussion
15:01:02 [wseltzer]
jeff: can't approve without reviewing
15:02:00 [fantasai]
chaals's suggestion for shortening was not the not, it was just removing some words earlier in the PR.
15:02:06 [fantasai]
s/not the not/not the note/
15:02:23 [wseltzer]
dsinger_: net meeting 9 Sept
15:05:21 [dsinger_]
next meeting sept 16th!
16:47:38 [tantek]
tantek has joined #w3process
17:07:03 [jeff]
jeff has joined #w3process
17:10:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #w3process