<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai

Agenda

dsinger: Apologies for the late agenda
... Any modifications ?
... hearing silence...

TAG documents with W3C approval

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/461

florian: chaals seems to be maintaining his position
... As far as I'm concerned ...
... Seems we all want the TAG to be able to issue documents with AC approval

<plh> --> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/NOTE-design-principles-20201110/ Web Platform Design Principles

florian: The question is are they RECs or not
... A bunch of us are saying that they can't be because invokes Patent Policy
... chaals says it has to be REC but doesn't say why
... idk if we have consensus or not
... If we go with a class of doc that is like a REC but no Patent Policy, should only TAG be able to publish or should all groups be able to?

dsinger: I would say let any group make such things
... Might be useful for HRGs

jrosewell: Reading through thread, why is TAG different from other Interest Groups?

florian: TAG is an elected body
... has a special status
... revisiting that is a whole new question
... and I'm not sure there's a lot of appetite for such question, first time I'm hearing it

fantasai: That question is a completely separate issue. If it's an issue to pursue, file it separately. Shouldn't block this issue.

dsinger: Agreed.
... So next step would be to draft out the Process text for such a W3C Consensus document

plh: Agree giving to other groups than TAG
... Difference between TAG and other groups is that Director is part of the TAG.
... Other groups, need Director to approve, but Director is part of TAG so TAG approval includes Director approval

florian: That's true in theory, not so much in practice these days
... Willing to draft the text
... but also, we also have issues of disentangling Notes and RECs
... Might be easier to do this after untangling those also.

dsinger: Related question, can we create different visual identity for things which are group consensus and those that are W3C Consensus?

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address plh's issue

<florian> The issue I mentioned is https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/342

jeff: Issue about visual identity of RECs and other documents, already an issue filed elsewhere. Let's not entangle that here.
... Raised important issue of Director ruling in case of conflict of interest
... Simple fix, unsure where to document it
... Extreme case, TAG has a Finding and Director is involved in the discussions
... Goes to AC approval, and there's an FO
... Use case of plh's concern wrt conflict of interest.
... Easy fix would be that the Director acting on the FO needs to recognize the conflict of interest and delegate the Director function of handling the FO to someone else

dsinger: OK, task for editor to draft up text
... Side-issue that nobody likes the name 'W3C Report'
... if anyone has a better name?

fantasai: "W3C Guidance"? Kinda like REC but not? :)

Maturity ???

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/455

dsinger: So are we making this change?

<jrosewell> No strong view.

<cwilso> should keep the same as IETF

<cwilso> (but I don't care that much, I just think it's an arbitrary difference)

fantasai: I don't see people using "level" outside the context of the Process document, but stages has been
... And while IETF might use levels, TC39 uses stages

dsinger: ok, we'll leave it open

Consolidating Discipline-related text

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/432

florian: Merged in various suggestions
... Suggest looking at the diffs rather than the conversation

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/432/files

dsinger: Changes *should* be editorial.
... Can fix up minor problems later also

<wseltzer> lgtm

lgtm

RESOLUTION: Accept PR

Superseding

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/324

RESOLUTION: Close no change

2021 Milestone Review

Charter Reviews

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63

<wseltzer> [I had proposed to close #38, as its initial opener]

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38#issuecomment-658794831

florian: Homework for me

2021 Review

florian: "P2021:Priority" are the ones we're trying to do, others are hopeful
... Pile of issues about registries
... several issues on simplification. Don't need to do all, but doing a few is nice.
... and Wide Review, need to revisit
... If we want to make the progress on others, need to do it, otherwise when we're done with the Priorities we're going to cut for the year

jrosewell: I had expected to put through some changes to 2021, is there a deadline for the Priorities?
... How do we decide the Priorities?

dsinger: We triaged those at the end of the previous cycle.
... of course if something urgent comes up, we can address it
... We decided at the beginning of the year if we address the Priorities, we've accomplisehd what we needed from this year. If we do additional things also, that's great.
... Goal is to have the text of the Process ready well before AC meeting in April, so we can discuss at the AC section what's in it and then start the formal ballot shortly after
... That means we need actual text in March.
... so PRs need to be done in Jan/Feb

florian: Sequence of the reviews is slow. All valuable, but we hardly ever get comments during multi-month review. Offline I think it woudl be good to think about how to consolidate. But otherwise I agree.

<cwilso> probably worthwhile to note the AB is nominally in charge of the Process, and thus if there are major issues you should probably raise them with the AB

cwilso: AB is nominally in charge, so good to get them engaged in that earlier, as they have to sign off on the CG's work

jrosewell: I was advised to bring issues to this group

cwilso: yes

jeff: AB hasn't decided on its spring meeting yet
... and is short on meeting time due to COVID
... AB meeting in January might be last chance for AB engagement prior to the deadlines
... so getting in sooner than later is probably important

cwilso: Although that's true, we should be able to do async work

fantasai: We also have the 2hr AB meetings, that's equivalent to an F2F, and we have one of those in Feb as well

Registries

dsinger: Some major differences between two proposal
... One major one is whether registry definition and registry tables are published together
... IETF/IANA split, also ISO
... I think that's the biggest difference in the diff that I linked in the agenda

florian: You're right this is the biggest difference
... The other difference
... We both agree that can incorporate registry definition into a REC
... But both also have ablity for registry definition to stand alone
... Question there is whether this separate document is a REC and invokes patent policy or not

fantasai: Interesting question of whether IETF/IANA and ISOC split is due to technological limitations, or at least historic ones. We have the ability to publish multiple-file publications.

florian: We have this point of disagreement, I think it would be good to get more people involved in the discussion
... One way to do this would be to issue a survey
... Other ways?

dsinger: Would be nice to have more people turning up in the meeting
... This meeting is frighteningly small

<wseltzer> [I support the lighter-weight option, which permits publishing separate documents]

[that's not "lighter weight"]

dsinger: AC hasn't given us feedback

<wseltzer> [less restrictive/prescriptive]

<florian> [more moving pieces need more rules to define how they work]

<jeff> [No strong opinions here]

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to suggest https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/466

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/466

fantasai: It's hard to get feedback when it's open-ended "please give us feedback". It's better for us to send out a structured query, and to the chairs, not the AC, because they're the ones who know what their WG needs

plh: Agree with fantasai, let's send a survey. Let's not send it out now

florian: fantasai and I drafted up a survey. Happy to accept suggestions to make sure it's not biased, but think sending survey is the right way forward

jrosewell: What's a registry and why is it important?

dsinger: Places in specifications where they have a field that contains a restricted set of values, where somebody can add a new value with a lightweight process
... e.g. add new encryption method in TLS, there's an encryption field in TLS, and you want to add xyz encrpytion method, get assigned a code name... etc.
... It's a mess at W3C.
... People maintain them in wikis, in separate Notes, sometimes inlined into REC
... sometimes only maitained in the ED, the official doc being out of date
... So we have agreement that we go through full review on the definition of the registry, defines the process of how to add, what fields there are, etc.
... and then lightweight process (as defined by the definition) to add/update fields

jrosewell: What's the contentious issue?

plh: Registry is a formal extension point for our specifications, so they're important
... The way we actually do the process has been a mess over the years
... This is an attempt to formalize how we do that

jrosewell: As a new AC member. Clearly needs to be fixed. Not contentious. Just have Team fix it.

dsinger: We're 95% of the way there, just in disagreement on a couple details of publication/management process.
... I feel strongly one way, and fantasai+florian feel strongly a different way

florian: We can't just throw it to the Team, because once this process exists, these documents will have the full weight of W3C Process behind them.
... They will be backed by the whole community. So the community needs to back the process by which they are created.
... We've mostly, but not entirely, solved that quesiton.

weiler: Where is the best discussion of these isssue for newcomer?

florian: Discussion is a mess, suggest you start with actual text.
... Two branches that are very very similar
... Suggest starting by reading the proposals

weiler: Links?

dsinger: Action item for me to provide background on remaining questions
... What are arguments for each way is spattered across many issues

https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/talk/Process2021#talk

fantasai: There was a talk on this and the open questions at TPAC AC meeting

<florian> branch 1: https://w3c.github.io/w3process/registries

<florian> branch 2: https://w3c.github.io/w3process/registries-on-rec-track

<florian> diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Fregistries&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Fregistries-on-rec-track

weiler: Any discussion with IANA to maintain registries for us?

dsinger: Didn't seem necessary.
... We can handle it already.

florian: We can refer to registries maintained at IANA, but people want to maintain them here at W3C.

weiler: So we haven't explored that with IANA
... Might raise that

plh: We have the infrastructure.
... Why would we ask IANA instead of doing it ourselves?

weiler: Thinking about WGs I've been involved in, often ppl other than chairs are working on things related to registries
... How would we reach them?

florian: We reach them by asking the chairs. Ask them to answer on behalf of their WG.

dsinger: not hiding from rest of the community
... We should make sure people maintaining quasi-registries are aware of the survey and ansewr it
... 3 action items, one is to look at this survey and make sure it's as crisply worded and unbiased as possible
... action on me and others and others to provide background on the open questions
... Also action item on me to look at all the open issues on registries if we can close or combine them

florian: On action #2, isn't that the presentation from the AC meeting?
... That's what it was meant to be. Whether I succeeded or not is a separate question. :)

jrosewell: You're looking for feedback, summarizing in a paragraph is better than a presentation cuz' ppl don't have time

fantasai: presentation is slides, transcript, and video. Can look at whichever. And it's short
... also we're not asking AC, we're askign WGs. Because we don't want theoretical purity answers, we want to know what's needed from ppl who actually need and are working on registries.

other stuff

jrosewell: Question about Membership Agreement
... Process is referenced from membership agreement
... Issue on simplification also needs to extend to the mosaic of documents
... Membership Agreement isn't subject to this CG

<weiler> to the Q re: dates. 23rd is likely problematic. but could do next week, if you need another hour this month.

jrosewell: Very hard to understnad exactly what happens when when you look at all these documents from Membership Agreement
... Where does it go?

jeff: Membership Agreement text is not my favorite text. Stems from other consortia from 25 years ago, and badly needs updating.
... But updating needs legal team, and is difficult
... spin-out to Legal Entity would be the right time to make any revisions
... that's roughly 12 months away
... not so far away actually

jrosewell: So gets picked up through LE work rather than this group

jeff: LE gets considerable attention from the AB
... so would be the right place for that

wseltzer: While we agree that the Member Agreement has references that are no longer relevant, I would disagree that it badly needs updating.
... continues to serve purpose of creating consortium members
... and we are able to update its references, the Process and Patent Policy, separately
... so hasn't been a priority to update the Agreement itself

dsinger: agree it's confusing, and some hope to simplify as we move to LE

weiler: If you can simplify the Process document by removing half the words, that'd be great

dsinger: Making it easier to read and use would be wonderful

Next Meeting

dsinger: formally, 23rd of December. Do we want to shift?
... meeting after that would be 13th of January, which I think is viable

<jrosewell> Would prefer to drop 23rd December meeting

dsinger: Could back it up a week

cwilso: would slide it til after the holidays

plh: Don't think we should send survey until after holidays anyway

dsinger: How about we move up January meeting until 6th?

<jrosewell> Agree. 6th would be best for me.

dsinger: Cancel 23rd, have one on the 6th instead or in addition to 13th?

florian: And let's work on survey asynchronously

dsinger: Yes please, so we can agree to send it out that day

fantasai: AB meeting last week of January, so do we want to shift both meetings up a week, to 6th and 20th?

dsinger: Makes sense to me

RESOLUTION: Next two meetings 6 January and 20 January

dsinger: Thanks everyone for productive meeting! Meeting adjourned.

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: dsinger jrosewell wseltzer fantasai plh cwilso
Found ScribeNick: fantasai
Inferring Scribes: fantasai

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)