13:55:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:55:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/09/16-w3process-irc
13:55:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:56:00 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
13:56:03 <dsinger_> present+ dsinger
13:56:03 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #w3process
13:57:44 <fantasai> present+
13:59:53 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
14:01:37 <florian> present+
14:03:39 <jeff> present+
14:03:56 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #w3process
14:05:12 <cwilso> present+
14:05:22 <jeff> scribe+
14:05:43 <jeff> Topic: Agenda corrections
14:05:51 <jeff> David: Any corrections?
14:05:57 <jeff> ... none
14:06:09 <jeff> Topic: P2020
14:06:14 <jeff> David: It is published and linked
14:06:22 <jeff> ... Congratulations
14:06:31 <jeff> All: [clapping]
14:06:45 <jeff> Topic: Consensus on issues
14:06:52 <jeff> Subtopic: #428
14:07:02 <jeff> David: PLH seems to want to leave it open
14:07:06 <jeff> ... don't know why
14:07:19 <jeff> Florian: PLH pointed out that we may want to use it in the future
14:07:27 <jeff> ... but he has now marked it as approved
14:07:31 <jeff> David: Objections?
14:07:40 <jeff> [None]
14:07:53 <dsinger_> #428 approved to pull
14:07:54 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:07:57 <jeff> David: PR #428 is approved
14:08:06 <jeff> Subtopic: #262
14:08:23 <jeff> David: Proposal to add a single sentence
14:08:29 <jeff> ... but Nigel's comment
14:08:40 <jeff> Florian: Nigel's comment is an orthogonal issue
14:08:47 <jeff> ... problem in existing text
14:08:56 <jeff> David: We should file an additional issue
14:09:00 <jeff> Florian: I think so
14:09:06 <jeff> ... his problem with context above
14:09:08 <plh> present+
14:09:35 <jeff> David: Comments?
14:09:41 <jeff> [None]
14:09:53 <dsinger_> q?
14:10:07 <dsinger_> #262 approved. new issue needed for the new question
14:10:11 <jeff> David: Pull request #262 is approved.
14:10:27 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #w3process
14:10:31 <jeff> Fantasai: Are we dfn'ing it?
14:10:35 <jeff> David: No
14:10:42 <jeff> Subtopic: #438
14:10:52 <jeff> David: Some dissent about how much of a note we need
14:11:01 <jeff> Florian: Dissent seems to be within the team
14:11:06 <jeff> ... Ralph v Wendy
14:11:17 <jeff> David: Wendy supported by me and Chaals
14:11:18 <jeff> q+
14:11:22 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:11:42 <jeff> ... Jeff can you resolve within the team
14:11:47 <jeff> Jeff: Not really
14:11:55 <jeff> Florian: I'll take it.
14:12:22 <jeff> ... Can we take a tentative resolution that on point (c) we delegate to Wendy and Ralph and accept everthing else
14:12:25 <jeff> ... ?
14:12:44 <jeff> David: You could do the base effort and keep the issue open about the note.
14:13:10 <jeff> Fantasai: You can include the note with the prefix "Issue"
14:13:18 <jeff> David: Let's do that
14:13:27 <dsinger_> #438, not agreed, we have continuing dissent over the note; we will pull with the Note as an issue, to enable progress
14:13:30 <jeff> Florian: Prevents branches on top of branches
14:13:46 <jeff> Subtopic: #449
14:14:20 <jeff> David: Process has been published without the change
14:14:25 <jeff> ... should we do for next year
14:14:34 <jeff> Florian: Drop Amended REC so there is no conflict
14:14:40 <jeff> Fantasai: Should be OK
14:14:52 <jeff> ... new items are Proposed Corrections/Additions
14:15:09 <dsinger_> q?
14:15:15 <jeff> ... outside of Process Doc noone sees the term Proposed Change
14:15:35 <jeff> PLH: Part of this is to help people understand
14:15:44 <jeff> ... discussed recently with Fantasai
14:16:05 <jeff> ... let's first get rid of Amended REC
14:16:09 <jeff> ... shouldn't hurry
14:16:14 <jeff> ... let's revisit in 3 months
14:16:23 <dsinger_> q?
14:16:27 <jeff> David: Rename for this process since it is a better name
14:16:38 <jeff> ... sounds like agreement to incorporate #449.
14:17:07 <jeff> Fantasai: I like calling Amended REC - "Team Amended REC"
14:17:10 <dsinger_> agree to incorporate #449 and gain experience. (a revisit will need a new issue)
14:17:12 <jeff> ... even without a conflict
14:17:39 <jeff> Topic: Registries
14:17:52 <jeff> David: Got logjammed last year
14:18:00 <jeff> ... then we finished Ever*
14:18:03 <jeff> ... I relooked
14:18:05 <jeff> ... it is long
14:18:10 <jeff> ... tried to simplify
14:18:16 <jeff> ... took a fork
14:18:42 <jeff> ... can define state of registry by looking at state of its recommendation
14:18:55 <jeff> ... when reach REC, registry become formal
14:19:02 <jeff> ... The, do you need a CR?
14:19:08 <jeff> s/The/Then/
14:19:21 <jeff> ... There are no implementations
14:19:26 <jeff> ... why have a CR phase
14:19:34 <jeff> ... but it is a signal to a WG
14:19:42 <jeff> ... still need signal
14:19:51 <jeff> ... ask for experimental registrations
14:19:59 <jeff> ... consider whether they would work
14:20:02 <jeff> ... well defined?
14:20:10 <jeff> ... are the fields all there?
14:20:22 <jeff> ... so let's say that a registry definition is part of a ReC
14:20:30 <jeff> ... that's what I built
14:20:37 <plh> q+
14:20:39 <jeff> ... some names unclear (e.g. Registry report)
14:20:45 <florian> q+
14:20:49 <jeff> ... apologize for failure to bikeshed
14:21:07 <dsinger_> my draft at <https://github.com/dwsinger/w3process/blob/registries/index.bs>
14:21:09 <jeff> ... could we pursue this direction
14:21:12 <dsinger_> q?
14:21:14 <jeff> ... clearly need work
14:21:15 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:21:20 <jeff> PLH: 2 things
14:21:31 <jeff> ... 1. Ralph would like to help with this.
14:21:36 <plh> https://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-standard-media-types/provisional-standard-media-types.xhtml
14:21:50 <jeff> ... 2. How is CR phase different from provisional list of IANA
14:21:57 <jrosewell> q+
14:21:58 <jeff> ... I saw James' email
14:22:07 <jeff> ... renaming incubation to experimental
14:22:10 <jeff> ... match IETF
14:22:15 <jeff> ... same for registry?
14:22:28 <jeff> David: Yes, during CR, registry is provisional
14:22:34 <jeff> PLH: You should consider it
14:22:51 <jeff> David: They have provisional registration.  This is a provisional registry.
14:23:10 <jeff> Fantasai: Exactly.  That is provisional entries; not a provisional registry
14:23:30 <jeff> ... all the values are in the registry unprovisionally
14:23:38 <jeff> David: Not quite the same
14:23:43 <dsinger_> ack flor
14:23:47 <jeff> ... thanks for Ralph's help
14:23:49 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to reply about provisional
14:23:53 <jeff> Florian: Interesting step forward
14:23:59 <jeff> ... will crack it from here
14:24:05 <jeff> ... I'll rebase to latest version
14:24:14 <jeff> ... will update pre-existing version
14:24:21 <jeff> ... prevent accidental differences
14:24:36 <jeff> ... two differences
14:24:41 <jeff> ... 1. that you talked about
14:24:56 <jeff> ... we already have recognized "no implementation to work for"
14:25:11 <jeff> ... 2. If in a standalone doc with no implementable requirement
14:25:20 <jeff> ... then also nothing for PP to cover
14:25:27 <jeff> ... why involve lawyers?
14:25:43 <jeff> ... so we have similar to REC track; removing irrelevant bits
14:25:49 <jeff> ... I will try a rewrite
14:26:02 <jeff> ... need to think about residual value of CR phase
14:26:11 <jeff> ... if not we can simplify further
14:26:21 <dsinger_> q+ to suggest the possibility of implementation-free Recs and skipping exclusion
14:26:21 <jeff> ... or a longer process that is easier to run through
14:26:34 <jeff> ... sync editorially will help that
14:26:52 <jeff> ... 2. Previous version allows registration and definitions in REC or standalone doc
14:26:55 <fantasai> dsinger, you can't skip exclusion. The Patent Policy defines itself to apply to the Recommendation Track.
14:26:59 <jeff> ... but not split between the two
14:27:08 <jeff> ... not quite objecting strongly
14:27:12 <jeff> ... but I see tension
14:27:13 <fantasai> dsinger, so as long as you're putting a document on the Recommendation Track, the Patent Policy will apply to it
14:27:16 <jeff> ... strong coupling
14:27:28 <jeff> ... can't read a table without knowing the purpose of columns
14:27:36 <jeff> ... so duplication if not in same doc
14:27:44 <jeff> ... could be annoying
14:27:57 <jeff> ... also not clear what to link to - single concept in 2 docs
14:28:04 <jeff> ... revisions are easy
14:28:22 <jeff> ... a conforming historical version of 2 docs is annoying (though possible)
14:28:42 <jeff> ... without value to separate, why tolerate these annoyances?
14:28:48 <dsinger_> q?
14:28:52 <dsinger_> ack jr
14:29:09 <jeff> James: I bring ignorance of existing process
14:29:15 <jeff> ... how is this seen outside the org
14:29:22 <jeff> ... other factors to consider
14:29:29 <jeff> ... how is it communicated?
14:29:39 <jeff> ... how would outsiders understand it; and the importance?
14:29:42 <florian> q+ to respond to james
14:29:45 <jeff> ... simplification is good
14:29:53 <jeff> ... aligning with external processes are helpful
14:30:13 <jeff> ... use terms that align with what people are familiar with
14:30:36 <jeff> ... e.g. ITIL (IT information Library)
14:30:43 <jeff> ... basis for many dev op processes
14:30:55 <jeff> ... has a familiar lexicon
14:31:00 <jeff> David: Please send to process ml
14:31:23 <jeff> David: We have no process for registration
14:31:29 <jeff> ... we have some in tables in a REC
14:31:33 <jeff> ... separate REC
14:31:37 <jeff> ... wiki, gh repo
14:31:47 <jeff> ... all over because we lack a preferred way to do it
14:32:22 <jeff> ... unclear who has authority to update
14:32:26 <jeff> ... are they keeping history
14:32:27 <dsinger_> q?
14:32:31 <jeff> ... need to clean up
14:32:34 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:32:34 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to suggest the possibility of implementation-free Recs and skipping exclusion
14:32:47 <jeff> David: For exclusion opportunities
14:32:56 <jeff> ... we have other RECs with no implementation phase
14:33:03 <jeff> ... focus on terminology
14:33:17 <jeff> ... could simplify lawyer's life by saying not implementable
14:33:23 <jeff> ... would require PP change
14:33:27 <jeff> ... might not be worth it
14:33:33 <jeff> Fantasai: Definitely not
14:33:39 <dsinger_> ack flo
14:33:39 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to james
14:33:39 <jeff> David: May be easier to leave it in
14:34:01 <jeff> Florian: Ease of understanding by external people is part of why we have a separate track
14:34:01 <dsinger_> q+ to comment on the split
14:34:14 <jeff> ... for internal people - easy to understand as a REC
14:34:25 <jeff> ... for external people - much easier as a standalone
14:34:39 <jeff> ... avoid amendment process, etc.
14:34:48 <dsinger_> q?
14:34:51 <jeff> ... not needed for registry
14:35:01 <jeff> ... who do we optimize for?
14:35:02 <dsinger_> q?
14:35:14 <jeff> David: On the split question
14:35:20 <jeff> ... I operate MP4 RA
14:35:39 <jeff> ... 99% readers look at RA to understand meaning of 4 character codes
14:35:44 <jeff> ... true for IANA as well
14:36:00 <jeff> ... hierarchy of constituents
14:36:08 <jeff> ... most common usage is lookup
14:36:14 <jeff> ... very few read the definitions
14:36:20 <jeff> ... only to register a new value
14:36:26 <jeff> ... fine to publish together
14:36:35 <jeff> ... but shouldn't require it
14:36:42 <dsinger_> q?
14:36:43 <jeff> ... realize it is a ditch.
14:36:47 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:36:47 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to comment on the split
14:36:50 <jeff> q+
14:36:55 <dsinger_> ack jef
14:36:56 <florian> q+ to propose how to move forward
14:37:25 <plh> q+
14:37:38 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:37:44 <jeff> Jeff: Can you have 2 copies of the value table (one non-normative) to simplify the lookup
14:37:47 <jeff> David: Rather not
14:38:02 <jeff> PLH: We can do tooling on top to provide the same information in a different way
14:38:15 <jeff> David: I would like that to be the small amount that defines the table.
14:38:18 <dsinger_> ack flo
14:38:18 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to propose how to move forward
14:38:37 <jeff> Florian: I will update your thing to the latest version
14:38:42 <jeff> ... tweak my part
14:38:58 <jeff> ... focus on the differences for the AC presentation
14:39:03 <jeff> ... get the AC input
14:39:06 <jeff> q+
14:39:15 <jeff> ... I would like to hear from a broader audience
14:39:22 <fantasai> +1 to hearing from a broader audience
14:39:25 <dsinger_> ack jef
14:39:26 <jeff> David: I agree with what you say
14:39:31 <fantasai> specifically on these two questions
14:39:54 <jeff> Jeff: Deadline on Monday for AC presentations
14:39:57 <jeff> David: Yes
14:40:23 <jeff> David: You should not have conformance depend on definitions in the registry
14:40:29 <jeff> ... registry is mutable
14:40:36 <jeff> ... this is not exclusive to registries
14:40:47 <jeff> ... I included a note in my write-up
14:41:01 <jeff> ... so this observation is a more general observation
14:41:10 <jeff> ... but an easy mistake to make
14:41:19 <jeff> ... do we need this warning in registries
14:41:20 <jeff> q+
14:41:23 <jrosewell> q+ dependencies in general
14:41:45 <jrosewell> q+
14:41:52 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:41:54 <jeff> Jeff: If we know we need it here, let's put it here
14:41:58 <jeff> ... worry about the rest later
14:42:03 <jeff> Fantasai: I agree
14:42:06 <dsinger_> ack jrose
14:42:08 <jeff> Florian: Seems reasonable for now
14:42:26 <jeff> James: Much implementation happens before CR
14:42:55 <jeff> ... important dependencies happen before REC phase
14:43:05 <jeff> ... mapping dependencies are quite difficult
14:43:19 <jeff> ... may depend on IETF experiment; on a doc in incubation phase
14:43:26 <jeff> ... hard to understand current state
14:43:38 <jeff> ... may be fixing the problem after the horse has bolted
14:43:51 <jeff> ... work is overly finalized before REC phase
14:43:53 <dsinger_> ack fant
14:43:56 <jeff> ... a reality that we face
14:44:03 <jeff> Fantasai: That is a separate topic
14:44:09 <jeff> ... Can't control implementations
14:44:22 <jeff> ... or the timing where proposals come up
14:44:31 <dsinger_> q+ to ask about names
14:44:34 <jeff> ... some times need to push forward to align
14:44:40 <jeff> ... can we have some conclusions
14:44:45 <jeff> ... sync the two options
14:44:55 <jeff> ... create an AC presentation to collect more feedback
14:44:58 <dsinger_> q?
14:45:17 <jeff> David: I use the word "referencing REC" for something that uses registry
14:45:26 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
14:45:32 <jeff> ... "registry definition" for the definition
14:45:41 <jeff> ... "registry report" for instantiation
14:45:41 <tantek> present+
14:45:50 <jeff> ... we should simplify the terminology
14:46:00 <jeff> ... call the tables "W3C registry"
14:46:08 <jeff> ... opinions?
14:46:16 <jeff> Florian: Agree it is awkward
14:46:23 <jeff> ... many animals to name
14:46:27 <jeff> ... it is hard
14:46:31 <jeff> ... they are bad
14:46:44 <jeff> ... but may end up with fewer things once we are done
14:46:47 <jrosewell> q+
14:46:51 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:46:51 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to ask about names
14:47:00 <jeff> David: We should revisit at end
14:47:14 <jeff> ... anyone object to calling it W3C registry for now?
14:47:29 <jeff> Tantek: Look at what names people are using
14:47:35 <jeff> ... accept as much as possible
14:47:58 <jeff> David: Let's simplify along those lines
14:48:00 <dsinger_> q?
14:48:05 <jeff> Florian: Bikeshedding is hard
14:48:16 <jeff> ... we don't have a lot of time before the AC call
14:48:21 <jeff> ... issues with W3C Registry
14:48:30 <jeff> ... maybe we will drop it; for now the word is used already
14:48:41 <jeff> ... let's not have the same word mean different things in two branches
14:48:41 <dsinger_> q?
14:48:45 <dsinger_> ack jrose
14:48:50 <jeff> David: We'll put it on people's radar.
14:49:03 <jeff> James: On naming, can delegate to a subset
14:49:24 <jeff> ... 50% of time (for recent charter) related to choosing names
14:49:31 <dsinger_> q?
14:49:36 <dsinger_> ack fant
14:49:36 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to get a resolution so we can move forward
14:49:45 <jeff> Fantasai: We should have a resolution
14:50:09 <jeff> Proposed resolution: Two branches for 2 proposals.  Florian to remove gratuitous differences.  Request AC feedback.
14:50:23 <jeff> David: Objections
14:50:42 <jeff> Resolved: Two branches for 2 proposals.  Florian to remove gratuitous differences.  Request AC feedback.
14:50:42 <tantek> just a suggestion, we may wish to keep iterating before going to AC
14:50:48 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/milestone/6
14:50:53 <jeff> Topic: Milestones
14:50:54 <tantek> assuming we are making progress converging
14:51:09 <jrosewell> q+
14:51:31 <dsinger_> ack jrose
14:51:33 <jeff> David: Milestone list is too long
14:51:38 <jeff> ... need to slim down.
14:51:45 <jeff> ... please do that in your spare time
14:51:52 <jeff> James: What is the deadline
14:51:55 <jeff> q+
14:52:02 <jeff> David: No formal deadline.
14:52:23 <jeff> ... this is an attempt to focus our work
14:52:38 <jeff> ... we usually have a draft for the fall
14:52:46 <jeff> ... looking for something in the spring meeting
14:52:54 <jeff> ... followed by formal approval
14:53:17 <jeff> James: After this group has settled on their proposal?
14:53:21 <jeff> David: Yes.
14:53:35 <jeff> ... we then get AC review; discussion; ballot
14:53:51 <jeff> ... at that stage we hope ballot does not raise anything new
14:54:03 <dsinger_> q?
14:54:06 <dsinger_> ack jef
14:55:57 <tantek> who is minuting?
14:56:16 <tantek> jeff: concerned about the council and voting
14:56:19 <jeff> Jeff: Can we look at #60
14:57:09 <jeff> ... concerned that STV could be a blocker for the W3C Council
14:57:16 <tantek> I think STV has been problematic yes, both for AB in particular, somewhat for TAG, and would be horrible for the council
14:57:19 <jeff> ... so I worry we cannot delay it any further
14:57:36 <jeff> David: That is a different issue from making the text consistent - which is #60
14:57:40 <tantek> so yes, STV is IMO a blocker for the Council
14:57:55 <tantek> October 7?
14:58:08 <jeff> David: Can we move October 14th to October 7th
14:58:10 <dsinger_> any objections to Oct 7th?
14:58:16 <tantek> wfm
14:58:20 <dsinger_> q?
14:58:24 <jeff> wfm
14:58:31 <dsinger_> ack no one
14:58:59 <jeff> David: Thanks all
14:59:02 <jeff> ... productive meeting
14:59:06 <jeff> ... accept PRs
14:59:10 <jeff> ... way ahead on registries
14:59:12 <jeff> ... thanks
14:59:19 <jeff> rragent, make minutes
14:59:30 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:59:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/09/16-w3process-minutes.html tantek
14:59:34 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/09/16-w3process-minutes.html jeff