15:05:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:05:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-w3process-irc
15:05:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:05:13 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
15:05:16 <plh> David: I went through the repo for priorities to send back to the AB
15:05:18 <plh> ... then where we are on major topics
15:05:20 <fantasai> present+
15:05:21 <jeff> present+
15:05:25 <plh> present+
15:05:45 <dsinger_> q?
15:05:55 <plh> regrets+ cwilson
15:06:11 <dsinger_> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Needs%20AB%20Feedback
15:06:13 <plh> Topic: Decisions on what needs AB input
15:06:30 <plh> David: #486 and #487 are TAG nomination and election
15:06:43 <jrosewell> q+
15:06:53 <dsinger_> ack jr
15:07:04 <plh> ... we need decisions on the AB but doesn't seem urgent
15:07:15 <plh> jrosewell: agree to move forward
15:07:43 <plh> ... overlap with holidays would be be nice to fix
15:07:44 <jeff> q+
15:07:45 <jrosewell> q+
15:07:48 <plh> ack je
15:07:50 <dsinger_> ack jef
15:08:24 <plh> jeff: +1 to staggering
15:08:43 <dsinger_> s/+1 to/+1 to not/
15:08:46 <plh> .... #487, is it a process thing or a team thing?
15:08:56 <fantasai> if it's not urgent for 2021, let's skip. We don't have time to discuss today.
15:09:02 <plh> ... I could take it to the team if it's not a process thing
15:09:09 <plh> david: maybe that's what we're asking
15:09:10 <dsinger_> q?
15:09:12 <dsinger_> ack jr
15:09:33 <plh> jrosewell: look at the holidays around the world and avoid them
15:09:52 <plh> david: best action is for the team to look at it
15:10:11 <jrosewell> q+
15:10:12 <plh> David: #482 on the adoption of a formal anti-trust policy
15:10:19 <wseltzer> q+
15:10:22 <plh> florian: AB is more appropriate, so yes
15:10:47 <plh> wseltzer: not that we do have a policy
15:10:57 <plh> david: feel free to retitle the issue
15:11:15 <plh> jeff: let's not. the word upgrading doesn't mean we don't have one
15:11:23 <plh> david: ok
15:11:32 <wseltzer> s/not that/note/
15:11:33 <plh> david: #436 (cover #322) on the minimal tooling requirements we propose
15:11:39 <plh> ... this one is urgent
15:11:40 <dsinger_> q?
15:11:44 <dsinger_> ack jr
15:11:47 <wseltzer> q-
15:12:06 <plh> jrosewell: there is a guideline on #482. it's urgent
15:12:33 <dsinger_> q?
15:12:34 <plh> david: ok, should go to the AB and Wendy
15:13:13 <plh> jeff: i sent a request to know how much time and topics we need for the AB
15:13:26 <plh> ... let's come back to that later
15:13:38 <plh> david: #334 Recording of meetings
15:13:46 <dsinger_> q?
15:13:47 <plh> ... should go on the AB agenda
15:14:17 <plh> david: #316 and #280 are both concerned with Director-free, #223 is about the AB chair selection
15:14:23 <plh> ... those are at the leisure of the AB
15:14:57 <plh> david: #168 and #130 aren't ready for AB discussion yet
15:15:21 <plh> s/and #130 aren't/isn't/
15:15:32 <plh> david: #130, why should this go to the AB?
15:15:51 <plh> florian: we're not blocking on the AB
15:16:00 <plh> david: I'll take the label off for now
15:16:21 <plh> Jeff: so we have up to 6 items
15:17:23 <plh> [going through timing for the AB agenda]
15:18:21 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
15:18:21 <plh> Topic: Registries
15:18:26 <plh> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/registries-chair-survey/results
15:18:32 <fantasai> florian: Should share link, but not read in-session
15:18:38 <fantasai> dsinger_: Survey closes today
15:18:47 <wseltzer> [6 responses]
15:18:51 <fantasai> plh: Only 6 responses so far
15:19:05 <fantasai> dsinger_: Do we need to extend it? Do we have time to extend it?
15:19:09 <dsinger_> q?
15:19:11 <jeff> q+
15:19:38 <fantasai> jeff: If they had a strong opinion, they'd respond and otherwise would be delegating to this group
15:19:48 <fantasai> fantasai: Suggest extend til Friday and poke chairs
15:19:57 <fantasai> dsinger_: Agree with fantasai
15:20:06 <fantasai> dsinger_: Who has access to this survey?
15:20:17 <fantasai> plh: Chairs and Team Contacts
15:20:31 <fantasai> dsinger_: Let's extend til Friday and ask the Team
15:20:33 <tzviya> q+ to ask how many responses
15:20:42 <wseltzer> q+
15:20:49 <wseltzer> q+ to suggest reachout to individuals
15:20:50 <fantasai> dsinger_: Certainly the Team Contact should be able to respond on behalf of groups that have proto-registries
15:20:53 <wseltzer> q-
15:20:56 <jeff> q-
15:21:02 <dsinger_> ack tz
15:21:02 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask how many responses
15:21:09 <jrosewell> 6 out of 188
15:21:39 <fantasai> dsinger_: OK, so proposal is extend til Friday and poke Team Contacts/chairs
15:21:48 <fantasai> tzviya: How many responses expected?
15:21:53 <fantasai> dsinger_: Hoping for at least a dozen
15:22:00 <fantasai> tzviya: Maybe poke ppl directly
15:22:04 <dsinger_> q?
15:22:09 <fantasai> Topic: Memoranda
15:22:21 <fantasai> florian: The PR for Memoranda was built on top of another one, can't quite discuss separately
15:22:30 <fantasai> florian: PR that separates note track from Rec track
15:22:43 <fantasai> florian: Last time I was asked to summarize why we should split the tracks
15:23:02 <fantasai> florian: forgot my action item, did last night, so will read the comment
15:23:19 <fantasai> florian: there are pictures!
15:23:42 <florian> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/342#issuecomment-776579249
15:26:43 <jeff> q+
15:27:01 <plh> q+
15:28:30 <dsinger_> q?
15:28:34 <fantasai> dsinger_: Personally I agree
15:28:38 <dsinger_> ack jeff
15:28:41 <fantasai> dsinger_: Conceptually separate is much easier to understand
15:28:47 <wseltzer> q+ on the transition from Rec-track to Note
15:29:05 <fantasai> jeff: I have to admit that was much faster than I could follow
15:29:21 <fantasai> jeff: I respect Florian's desire to simplify
15:29:35 <fantasai> jeff: but while it simplifies the actual Process, means quantity of changes we need to evaluate is quite a lot
15:29:41 <fantasai> jeff: Because changes links in the Process
15:29:50 <fantasai> jeff: Didn't understand why necessary to address 461
15:30:03 <fantasai> jeff: All it asks is for TAG to take a document to approved status
15:30:29 <fantasai> jeff: 342 seems nice, but don't see why we need all that change
15:30:31 <dsinger_> q?
15:30:35 <dsinger_> ack plh
15:30:50 <fantasai> plh: I like it, but my problem is there no way to go from WD to Note
15:30:53 <wseltzer> +1 to plh
15:30:54 <wseltzer> q-
15:30:56 <fantasai> plh: You're forcing to say Discontinued
15:31:13 <fantasai> plh: some groups reluctant, because not discontinued, but want to continue working on it
15:31:28 <fantasai> dsinger_: Would you suggest that as a unidirectional arrow?
15:31:33 <fantasai> plh: Should be reversable
15:31:40 <fantasai> plh: might make second diagram as complex as first one
15:31:42 <dsinger_> q?
15:31:48 <fantasai> dsinger_: Not as much as the first diagram
15:32:10 <fantasai> florian: Retiring a REC-track document because giving up on it, that's a handled case
15:32:29 <fantasai> florian: but if taking document on REC track and switching it to a Note with intention of moving back to REC track, very messy from PP point of view
15:32:48 <jeff> q+
15:32:50 <fantasai> florian: transition from REC track to NOTE is described as abandoning document
15:32:57 <fantasai> florian: If you retire something
15:33:02 <fantasai> plh: Groups can change their mind over years
15:33:07 <wseltzer> [groups can drop something from Rec track without abandoning]
15:33:11 <fantasai> florian: If you want to retire a document, that's allowed.
15:33:24 <dsinger_> q?
15:33:25 <fantasai> florian: if goal is to switch tracks, make progress, and then switch again
15:33:46 <fantasai> florian: Replying to Jeff, TAG elevating notes ... TAG can't even publish NOTEs in current Process
15:33:56 <jeff> q+ to respond to Florian and to comment on his debate with PLH
15:33:58 <fantasai> florian: We could make a TAG-specific process doesn't seem ideal
15:34:11 <fantasai> florian: and that wouldn't let anyone else elevate their notes
15:34:47 <fantasai> florian: We should let the TAG publish NOTES, and let everyone elevate their NOTES
15:34:52 <dsinger_> q+ to suggest we maybe need a name other than 'discontinued'?
15:35:11 <wseltzer> q+
15:35:14 <fantasai> florian: I could manage to make edits that add elevated NOTEs without this separation, but it raises a lot of questions
15:35:35 <fantasai> florian: e.g. we'd have a way to elevate an abandoned REC
15:35:42 <fantasai> florian: why should that be possible?
15:36:08 <dsinger_> ack fan
15:36:08 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on PP
15:36:39 <plh> fantasai: the PP is clear: it doesn't consider Notes to exist. so, it will only see WDs
15:36:55 <plh> ... it's not good
15:37:04 <dsinger_> q?
15:37:07 <dsinger_> ack jef
15:37:07 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to Florian and to comment on his debate with PLH
15:37:08 <plh> ... contributions to the Notes aren't covered by the PP
15:37:57 <plh> jeff: I object to conflate the 2 issues. the original issue was only to get TAG documents endorsed
15:38:24 <fantasai> i/fantasai: /scribenick: plh/
15:38:29 <plh> ... they don't have to be Notes. the TAG is a unique group and we want a wait to endorse their documents
15:38:48 <plh> ... the solution 342 is unecessary to solve that
15:38:59 <plh> ... on paths of Notes<->WDs
15:39:24 <plh> ... this is an illustration of why it would take longer to take this through
15:39:40 <dsinger_> ack ws
15:39:42 <plh> ... so I'd like a narrow solution for the TAG for the immediate future
15:40:08 <plh> wseltzer: +1 to separate the issues. the path to Notes from REC-track is a useful one
15:40:18 <plh> ... so let's not throw it out
15:40:33 <plh> florian: why is that a feature?
15:40:39 <jeff> q+ to respond to florian about things that are wrong today
15:40:40 <dsinger_> q?
15:40:50 <plh> wseltzer: I just said the path from REC-track to Notes
15:41:10 <fantasai> I don't see a problem with WD->NOTE, but having Draft NOTE still seems necessary
15:41:24 <plh> florian: I thought the AB recommended overall of the states. are we now saying that the TAG shouldn't publish Notes?
15:41:59 <plh> florian: if I extend the current process wording, the TAG would be allowed to publish working drafts
15:42:29 <tzviya> q+ to ask if the goal is the process or that tag publishing
15:42:40 <plh> ack ds
15:42:40 <Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to suggest we maybe need a name other than 'discontinued'?
15:42:43 <jeff> q- later
15:42:54 <plh> david: the PP FAQ tells us about TAG participants
15:43:13 <plh> florian: that's the FAQ, not the PP
15:43:25 <dsinger_> q?
15:43:48 <plh> fantasai: anything the TAG participants produce are owned by their employers in general
15:44:12 <wseltzer> [not uniformly]
15:44:19 <plh> david: we could change the label 'discontinued' if that makes WGs unconfortable
15:44:27 <fantasai> s/about TAG participants/about TAG participants being treated as IEs/
15:44:53 <dsinger_> q?
15:44:57 <dsinger_> ack tz
15:44:57 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if the goal is the process or that tag publishing
15:45:41 <plh> tzviya: it seems we're getting caught in the process. people outside of W3C don't necessarily care about the details of the Process.
15:45:50 <dsinger_> q?
15:46:00 <plh> ... we should focus on making sure the TAG can accomplish what they need
15:46:04 <dsinger_> ack jef
15:46:04 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to florian about things that are wrong today
15:46:55 <plh> jeff: I don't disagree with #342 being worked on, but we should socialize it given the changes
15:47:10 <plh> ... it's not just a wording issue
15:47:29 <plh> ... it will need a broader conversation but I'd like to land a solution for the TAG this year
15:47:59 <plh> ... the TAG can take a finding to memorandum if we'd like to
15:48:04 <plh> s/dum/da/
15:48:22 <dsinger_> q?
15:48:25 <plh> florian: if we do it in the reverse order, we'll have duplicate parts of the process
15:48:41 <plh> jeff: i don't hear any real problem that would solve.
15:48:50 <jrosewell> Observation: we've spent 20 minutes discussing this and don't seem to have a solution that we can agree (or even understanding the exact problem). A general simplification should be completed before these sort of issues are worked on.
15:48:55 <plh> ... we just want to get TAG documents endorsed
15:49:13 <jeff> s/real problem/immediate problem/
15:49:18 <plh> david: Florian, feel free to socialize your idea
15:49:42 <fantasai> dsinger++
15:50:02 <plh> ... if we get support, we can think more about it. if we get comments, we can keep looking at minimal changes
15:50:17 <plh> ... I'll look at providing a path for the minimal solution for the TAG
15:50:17 <jeff> dsinger++
15:50:28 <jeff> +1 to David's 2 proposals
15:50:57 <plh> ACTION: Florian to socialize his ideas in #342
15:51:03 <dsinger_> ack fant
15:51:11 <plh> ACTION: David to come back with a minimal solution to endorse TAG documents
15:51:47 <plh> fantasai: the fact that Notes can represent discontinued documents, we have an old issue about what discontinued documents represent.
15:52:33 <fantasai> s/can represent discontinued documents/can represent discontinued documents is something people find confusing. Also/
15:52:43 <wseltzer> +1 to the rephrasing
15:52:43 <plh> david: #493 and #494 Pull, clarifying Team Amendments. We seem converged, are we?
15:52:59 <fantasai> s/documents represent/documents represent, clarifying it; the proposed changes would do that/
15:53:06 <plh> florian: seems so indeed. I made the edits
15:53:22 <plh> wendy: +1
15:53:29 <plh> david: approved then
15:54:43 <plh> [david going quickly through AC-Review and P2021 issues]
15:55:07 <plh> Topic: Other Pull Requests
15:55:25 <plh> david: I'll roll that over for the next agenda
15:55:43 <dsinger_> q?
15:56:14 <jeff> q+
15:56:52 <jrosewell> q+
15:57:03 <jeff> q- later
15:57:25 <plh> fantasai: I don't think it makes sense to look at other things than allowing the TAG to publish Notes, and allow Notes to be elevated to Memoranda
15:57:27 <dsinger_> q?
15:57:36 <plh> .... possible restrict the later to TAG-only
15:57:41 <dsinger_> q?
15:57:44 <dsinger_> ack jr
15:57:46 <plh> ... it seems the easiest way to move forward
15:57:48 <jrosewell> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/467
15:58:13 <fantasai> We've been asked to make the TAG allowed to publish NOTEs, and they use NOTEs not Findings for general documents such as the ones we are wanting them to elevate
15:58:41 <fantasai> If we want to restrict elevation to the TAG, fine
15:58:52 <plh> jrosewell: if we need to simplify or get more capacity to edit the Process, maybe the staff can come with external facilitation
15:59:12 <plh> david: might be good to get a professional writer
15:59:23 <dsinger_> q?
15:59:43 <plh> florian: I suspect adding people will just add opinions, we still need consensus
16:00:02 <dsinger_> q?
16:00:05 <dsinger_> ack jeff
16:01:07 <plh> jeff: on TAG and Notes: my advise is that if we don't land #342, we don't delay using Notes
16:01:21 <plh> david: true, we can continue with current practices
16:01:51 <dsinger_> q?
16:02:52 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
16:02:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-w3process-minutes.html plh
17:08:52 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
17:17:33 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
19:08:20 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
19:17:40 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
20:16:58 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
20:29:21 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process