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