Revising W3C Process Community Group

26 August 2020


Coralie, cwilso, dsinger_, fantasai, florian, jeff, jrosewell, plh, weiler, wseltzer

Meeting minutes

dsinger_: state of P2020
… anything we need to know, do?

jeff: we're moving forward

florian: we have a published ref to reference

plh: are you continuig to make edits?
… since I took a snapshot

<plh> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌w3process/‌commit/‌1a983931903e79981a4bffc0f7738f80cbdc1d35#diff-ec9cfa5f3f35ec1f84feb2e59686c34d

dsinger_: agenda-bash?


4) Issues and PRs tagged agenda+.

dsinger_: 4.1) Discipline; we were working on the text at the last meeting

<koalie> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌w3process/‌pull/‌432

florian: there was sugestion that insertion could be confusing in context
… that was from fantasai, and we haven't heard from her
… a new, publicly available document regarding discipline
… from Coralie

<koalie> https://‌www.w3.org/‌Guide/‌process/‌banning.html

koalie: W3M has developed guidance on procedures for removing individuals from groups in rare instances
… ^ guidebook resource
… we'll announce it to members and chairs

florian: sounds ok to me
… if Process delegates to Director, and this is how director will act

plh: goal to document

dsinger_: should we link to these guidelines, and Process text
… re guidelines...

florian: I support

dsinger_: mostly supportive
… but is it CEPC-specific

plh: it doesn't restrict to CEPC

florian: might be a question for AB review

dsinger_: consensus here that this doc is good enough to link to?
… any objections?
… hearing silence, link it.
… thanks koalie

plh: I'll link from /guide as well

<weiler> koalie++

dsinger_: is the glitch solved?

florian: works for me, but I wasn't the one who raised the issue

dsinger_: fine to leave for next meeting

dsinger_: will we address 312 at the same time?

jeff: 312 introduces additional topics for Director-free

… so leave it for the AB project

florian: note in 312 that it's partially addressed by this PR

dsinger_: propose we continue offline

dsinger_: 428

<koalie> [coralie departs]

dsinger_: plh, you wanted to keep it open

florian: I updated
… note re no way to update Rec normatively
… ambiguity wrt whether team can/can't make proposed corrections
… as it's class 2, clarify they can

plh: need to review

dsinger_: First meetings, 434

florian: we had a discussion and resolution in the AB
… we have a requirement for 8 weeks between announcement and meeting
… for physical meeting
… but under current process, you could have a proposed charter, and meet sooner than 8weeks after approval

wseltzer: this seemed to me overly constraining, especially when groups are just resolving minor wording issues in charters
… and they plan toward a pre-existing meeting, such as TPAC
… I haven't seen AB resolution

plh: so are you saying groups under discussion now can't plan for TPAC

florian: this year, not a problem with virtual
… but saying you can't make plans before the group exists

weiler: when I think about how specs are being incubated, can imagine a CG sayig
… "we want to have a meeting" whether as a CG or WG
… does this mean they can't meet if thinking about chartering?

florian: you can't meet as formal WG meeting

dsinger_: you can have a CG meeting, not one making WG decisions

dsinger_: e.g. decision to take up a new WD

<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?

jeff: sounds as though this conversation supports informal meeting at TPAC

<weiler> weiler: what is a WD decision? What sort of decisions could/should an incubator group not make?

jeff: but the text says "informal meetings should not be planned to get around this restriction"
… maybe remove that text from PR?

florian: the AB had said no exception for TPAC, because some peoople don't travel to all TPACs

jeff: I thought I was hearing agreement here that groups could meet informally

florian: no, I'm not agreeing that
… disagree with setting social pressures that start the group informally and then make others come in later to object

<Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to talk about getting approvals to join

plh: but it's too easy to evade that restriction, just pick another name

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to mention that decisions are async nowadays

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
… and that takes time

plh: that's why we earlier set the time from the time the charter was sent for review
… also, all of our decisions are now taken asynchronously, confirmed offline

florian: but social pressures not to go against consensus, or not object and make us change travel plans

fantasai: not sure how much practical distinction between formal and infrmal meetings
… also exception if all participants agree, right?
… that should still be allowed

weiler: fantasai seems to capture my sense of pre-existing group wanting to meet

<dsinger_> that have not yet been chartered,"

weiler: florian, are you describing a case where people would want to participate in WG but have been avoiding prior incubation?

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss "really hard to go against the pre-agreed consensus"

jeff: I think the description of social pressure is not fully aligned
… there are also long-term incubations
… and remote participation is now usually possible for those who can't arrange travel
… we shouldn't block those who are available from meeting

<jeff> +1 to David's suggestion

dsinger_: maybe we should say that short-scheduled meetings should be open, not restricted to those in the WG

plh: +1 to that

dsinger_: think we need to consider how to bring to AB

[I added my comments in https://‌github.com/‌frivoal/‌w3process/‌commit/‌68ace68304045c3e59ec624b1e8f97f1635e42f1 ]

dsinger_: discontinued
… suggest addition to the Status indicating why discontinued

florian: alternative, not create a new term, and just describe in status

plh: today, we can mark doc retired
… obsolete, superceded, rescinded, so they disappear from default /TR view
… and also docs that become WG notes
… from publishing perspective, we should ask those publishing the docs to describe their publications

florian: this issue triggered by someone confused about what the status section means

dsinger_: look at the issue.

florian: if we add the sentence, then use "discontinued" consistently

dsinger_: fine to uise the definition, without the word, too

dsinger_: substantive changes to charter

Substantive changes to charter

dsinger_: ready to go?

<fantasai> github: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌w3process/‌issues/‌28

florian: still have some concern
… when a charter is substantively changed director must seek re-review

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 121 (Mon Jun 8 14:50:45 2020 UTC).


Succeeded: s/say/restrict to/

Succeeded: s/week/meeting/

Maybe present: koalie