14:07:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:07:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/10/07-w3process-irc
14:07:36 <plh> Meeting: Process CG
14:07:41 <plh> David: anything to add to the agenda?
14:07:45 <plh> [none heard]
14:07:47 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:07:50 <plh> Topic: Issues and PRs
14:07:56 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/418
14:07:59 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/312
14:08:05 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/432
14:08:49 <plh> florian: those are still suggestions. didn't look further lately. don't think we're far however.
14:09:16 <plh> Jeff: didn't have a chance a look at it yet. hard to follow the context
14:10:36 <plh> [discussion about the clarity of the changes]
14:10:41 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
14:10:50 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/432/files
14:10:53 <tantek> present+
14:12:00 <tantek> I have to admit the interspersed diffs and comments are confusing
14:12:09 <tantek> can we see a cleaned up diff please?
14:12:09 <jrosewell> Note: For another time. Document changes are generally better done with document collaboration solutions like Google Docs or Word Online. It would make handling these sort of issues easier.
14:12:17 <tantek> this is not normal for pull requests
14:12:27 <tantek> jrosewell, I strongly disagree
14:12:49 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/455
14:13:25 <plh> Fantasai: we don't really use the term "maturity level"
14:13:46 <plh> ... was thinking about changing the second part of the term to "stage" or something similar
14:13:53 <jrosewell> +1
14:14:06 <plh> ... it would be easier to use the term outside of the process
14:14:14 <jrosewell> Making the work of the W3C easier for others to follow is very important change.
14:14:24 <plh> ... I avoid using "maturity" outside of the process geeks
14:14:38 <tantek> +1 fantasai, "maturity level" is process wonk jargon and should be dumpted
14:15:08 <tantek> s/dumpted/dumped
14:15:48 <tantek> +1 for "stage"
14:16:22 <dsinger_> q?
14:16:33 <plh> Tantek: +1 to adopt "maturity stage"
14:16:48 <tantek> s/"maturity stage"/"stage"
14:16:59 <chaals> chaals has joined #w3process
14:17:05 <plh> Jeff: [looking around for instances of mautiry level]
14:17:08 <tantek> s/to adopt/to drop "maturity level" from the guide etc. and to adopt
14:17:16 <chaals> present+
14:17:24 <jeff> Random examples of a CSS doc --> http://www.css3.info/css3-development-status-an-explanation-of-w3c-maturity-levels/
14:17:41 <plh> fantasai: if we just use "stage" that will cause confusion, but "maturity stage is an improvement
14:17:47 <tantek> drop "maturity" completely please, it's jargon in this context
14:18:12 <dsinger_> q?
14:18:13 <plh> David: ok, let's move to maturity stage
14:18:50 <dsinger_> s/move/expect to move/
14:19:16 <plh> Fantasai: we have existing documentation talking about maturity, so we can't drop it. but outside of the process document, folks could use "stage" as a shortcut to "maturity stage"
14:19:36 <chaals> [ -1 to dropping the "maturity" - which is pretty much used according to its natural language meaning. Whether we say level/stage/whatever is something I personally don't thinik really matters.]
14:19:49 <tantek> would prefer just "stage" (like TC39), but can live with "maturity stage" (expecting the "maturity" will be dropped like a vestigial appendix eventually)
14:20:00 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/324
14:20:17 <fantasai> Topic: Superseding
14:20:19 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/324
14:20:24 <plh> david: we saw recently a survey to supersede JSON-LD 1.0
14:20:28 <plh> ... that's something the WG can decide
14:20:53 <plh> ... my suggestion is to allow groups to supersede their own spec with a new spec
14:21:14 <jeff> q+
14:21:16 <plh> David: (read his proposal)
14:21:25 <plh> q?
14:21:27 <chaals> q+ to speak against the proposal
14:21:31 <jeff> q- later
14:21:42 <plh> florian: I dont' feel the urge but support the proposal
14:21:46 <plh> q+
14:21:58 <plh> q?
14:22:01 <dsinger_> q?
14:22:07 <jeff> q- later
14:22:15 <florian> s/the urge/the urge as strongly/
14:22:15 <dsinger_> ack cha
14:22:15 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to speak against the proposal
14:22:38 <plh> chaals: don't think we should do this. this seems procedural.
14:22:59 <jeff> q-
14:23:02 <plh> ... there are cases where WGs might think the world moved to change a new version and the world disagree
14:23:23 <dsinger_> q+ to respond to chaals
14:23:32 <plh> ... the AC is moderately a reflexion of reality in this case
14:23:43 <plh> ... it should still be an explicit review
14:23:55 <plh> ... in your PR review, you may do this
14:23:58 <dsinger_> q?
14:24:01 <dsinger_> ack plh
14:24:17 <fantasai> plh: There were two aspects of the proposal which helps with chaals's concern
14:24:34 <fantasai> plh: One is if ... and we forgot to task the AC as part of its review.
14:24:49 <fantasai> plh: Second, it only allows WG to do that if there is a newer version
14:25:01 <fantasai> plh: There's no newer version if you don't have a REC that's been approved by the AC
14:25:12 <dsinger_> q?
14:25:27 <fantasai> dsinger_: We're talking about superseding, not obsoleting
14:25:27 <chaals> [Yeah, I do want the AC to have that specific review]
14:25:42 <plh> david: we're not talking obsoleting, just superseding. both versions remain available and there is always a long transition for the market to update
14:26:05 <plh> ... it is just a statement of the fact that there is a newer version
14:26:07 <dsinger_> q?
14:26:18 <plh> chaals: unconvinced but won't block
14:26:20 <dsinger_> ack ds
14:26:20 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to respond to chaals
14:26:32 <jeff> q+
14:26:32 <plh> florian: if the AC feels strongly about something
14:26:39 <jrosewell> Agree with @dsinger that there is an established norm to transition from one version of a specification to another and it's up to implementers to decided when to transition from one standard of interoperability to another.
14:26:40 <plh> ... you can state that in the charter
14:26:47 <chaals> s/won't block/won't block consensus if I am the only dissenter
14:26:56 <plh> david: yes, and you can always object after the fact
14:27:42 <plh> fantasai: can we require an announcement to the AC list. give a 2/3 weeks to allow for objection.
14:27:50 <plh> david: yes, that would work
14:28:00 <fantasai> s#2/3#2-4#
14:28:16 <fantasai> s/objection/objection, otherwise it passes
14:28:34 <jeff> q?
14:28:40 <plh> florian: you can't apply it today since it calls for an explicit AC review
14:29:43 <plh> [some wordsmithing]
14:29:51 <jeff> q?
14:29:51 <dsinger_> q?
14:29:55 <dsinger_> acj jeff
14:29:55 <plh> david: ok, will leave it open for cycle but we're converging
14:29:59 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:29:59 <chaals> [One reason I don't think this is a critical issue is because we have gone a couple of decades without solving this minor part of the versioning problem, so taking a couple of years to normalise superseding doesn't seem like a terrible problem.]
14:30:30 <fantasai> [I could go either way. I neither feel strongly that we need this, nor that we should not have it.]
14:31:01 <dsinger_> q?
14:31:05 <plh> jeff: today, we do an AC review and if no one objects, it goes through. we're now proposing a notification now. looks like we're adding a new process because of a mistake
14:31:34 <plh> david: there is a long tail of things that should have been superseded but too much process to go through
14:32:07 <plh> florian: for the notification, it heard it was just announcement but giving the opportunity for folks to object
14:33:20 <plh> david: asking trivial questions, we diminish the visibility of other surveys
14:33:49 <dsinger_> s/there is a long/q?
14:34:09 <dsinger_> s/q?/there may be a long/
14:34:11 <dsinger_> q?
14:34:25 <plh> jeff: seems like we want to fix a mistake by process
14:34:41 <tantek> +1 right we don't need anything now for this, just more practice with superseding and obsoleting
14:34:48 <dsinger_> ack fanta
14:35:18 <plh> david: ok, then maybe we don't need the second sentence
14:35:32 <plh> florian: we're already doing the first sentence by practice
14:35:48 <plh> ... so, we may not need to add the first sentence
14:36:07 <plh> jeff: close the issue?
14:36:19 <plh> david: I'll leave it open but it's now a candidate to close
14:36:29 <plh> ... with nbo action
14:36:34 <plh> s/nbo/no/
14:37:01 <plh> Topic: Process 2021 milestones
14:37:36 <florian> q+
14:38:00 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38
14:38:46 <plh> florian: chaals was objecting to the concept being proposed. I'm leaning towards closing it while we look at the broader question
14:38:51 <dsinger_> q?
14:38:55 <plh> ... so close it with no action
14:38:57 <dsinger_> ack flo
14:39:08 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38#issuecomment-658794831
14:39:18 <plh> fantasai: what about updating the process to ack the current practice?
14:39:40 <plh> florian: ok, I can make an editorial proposal
14:40:38 <dsinger_> q?
14:40:55 <plh> ACTION: Florian to proposal an editorial update for #38
14:41:01 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63
14:41:02 <plh> s/proposal/propose/
14:41:39 <tantek> Is there a vision / motivational summary paragraph for Process 2021? Or are we trying to extract meaning from the weeds of specific issues? (yes, besides Registries, I realize that's a big goal for 2021)
14:41:53 <dsinger_> q?
14:41:54 <tantek> q?
14:41:56 <plh> david: #63 is now a duplicate of #38
14:42:04 <plh> .. we'll close both
14:42:35 <fantasai> Topic: Clarify the Voting Process
14:42:41 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60
14:43:03 <plh> jeff: we're missing the folks who were objecting to discuss this
14:43:15 <tantek> issue 60 has better chance of being resolved in the AB than in ProcessCG
14:43:33 <plh> ... this issue is getting hidden greater issues.
14:43:51 <jrosewell> q+
14:43:54 <plh> ... we have layers of confusion. would be good to find out if the AC supports the council
14:44:05 <plh> ... and then comes back to this issue
14:44:08 <plh> ack j
14:44:09 <chaals> q+
14:44:13 <dsinger_> ack jrose
14:44:25 <plh> james: council is meant to replace the Director?
14:44:32 <plh> david: for the formal objection only
14:44:44 <plh> florian: only one role of the Director
14:45:40 <chaals> q-
14:45:44 <plh> plh: and the AB is conducting an experiment with the council
14:46:10 <plh> david: I'll propose to close this issue at the next meeting
14:46:46 <dsinger_> q?
14:47:06 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/milestone/6
14:47:48 <dsinger_> q?
14:48:11 <jrosewell> q+
14:48:13 <plh> david: we have over 35 issues on P2021....
14:48:39 <plh> florian: not all of them are priorities. if we don't get to the others, we'll push them along to the next version
14:48:59 <plh> david: looking for specific proposals
14:50:13 <plh> david: for wide reviews, we need to progress
14:50:51 <plh> plh: I'll take #130
14:50:53 <dsinger_> q?
14:51:00 <dsinger_> ack jrose
14:51:32 <plh> james: for my part, I expect to make proposals/issues at the beginning of November
14:51:55 <plh> s/beginning/middle/
14:51:57 <chaals> [Thank you James for planning that effort]
14:52:12 <dsinger_> q?
14:52:20 <plh> david: ok, so post-TPAC we should look back the progress
14:53:01 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/167
14:53:11 <plh> florian: it overlaps with the Director free process
14:53:17 <jeff> q+
14:53:25 <plh> ... not sure if it will solve it however
14:53:29 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:53:56 <plh> jeff: good chance that things will get worst giving the number of engines
14:54:12 <plh> ... but, in the absence of a proposal, I'm not sure how to solve it
14:54:34 <plh> .... something vague to give the Director flexibility to use their judgement
14:54:52 <plh> ... maybe we close the issue and re-open if things change or we get a proposal
14:55:10 <plh> ... it pushes us to make more definition where it doesn't seem necessary
14:55:28 <dsinger_> q?
14:55:40 <plh> florian: maybe a guideline?
14:56:22 <jeff> q+
14:56:31 <dsinger_> q?
14:56:38 <dsinger_> ack jeff
14:57:10 <plh> jeff: maybe we should push the work on guidelines to somewhere else
14:57:44 <plh> ... as a way to avoid cluttering our agenda
14:57:56 <chaals> [I think there would be a need to think about how you are going to run such a group. There is already an open github repo that can be used for the work, but it isn't clear how changes get taken in…]
14:58:09 <plh> florian: it will clear the agenda but won't reduce the work
14:58:41 <jeff> [Good point Chaals.  I was thinking of proposing PLH to chair the guidelines group and have them meet at the frequency that he thought would make sense.]
14:58:41 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/236
14:59:41 <plh> fantasai: "Draft Notes" ?
15:00:21 <plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/?status=ret
15:01:38 <plh> florian: concerned about the mixing of documents on the REC track and those that are not
15:01:54 <plh> david: we can go some clean-ups
15:02:05 <florian> s/are not/are not, due to patent policy implications/
15:02:07 <plh> s/go/do/
15:02:19 <plh> Topic: Next meeting
15:02:22 <fantasai> Strong +1 to separating the tracks by adding "Inactive Draft"  & "Draft Note" or whatever
15:03:36 <plh> David: November 11
15:04:37 <dsinger_> q?
15:06:04 <plh> [adjourned]
15:06:07 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
15:06:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/07-w3process-minutes.html plh
16:36:41 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process
16:38:13 <github-bot-> github-bot- has joined #w3process
16:39:10 <github-bot-> github-bot- has joined #w3process
16:40:10 <github-bot-> github-bot- has joined #w3process
16:41:09 <github-bot-> github-bot- has joined #w3process
16:42:07 <github-bot> github-bot has joined #w3process
17:27:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process