Meeting minutes
4 items for 2021 Process
Tooling Policy
david: [talks about the AB CfC]
… should/must for retention records
jeff: which CfC was that?
Jeff: the AB CfC did not get the 8 supporters and got a -1 from me
… regarding getting should/must
… so we didn't get AB consensus on this one
David: so we got a lot of people missing
florian: I don't think we're done going through the conclusions from the AB but no one changed their support
… there will be request for changes to the wording in any case
jeff: agreed, I think we can make some progress on this
jeff: agreed that it has to be a must ultimately
fantasai: for the implementation of must for minutes/decision, we're not far away
… we're not deploying the process immediately. don't think we'll have troubles to bring everyone in line
david: ok, should try to revise the wording and wait for plh to give the results of his survey
jeff: one Group was sloppy in the past
jeff: it's easy if the group wants to do it but if the group does not want, we'll need to discuss with them
<jeff> PLH: I don't imagine a group refusing
<jeff> ... could be a technical problem
... may want a system to drop GoogleDocs into an email/gh
… don't have tools today
Florian: Tool is trivial: export to PDF, send an email, done
PLH: If you do it manually
recording meetings
david: should we defer and take it offline?
florian: agreed
<jeff> s/differ/defer/
florian: for routine meetings, we shouldn't have recordings but there might be exceptions for some meetings
david: I don't have strong feelings. let's the discussion going on github
Chris: we have an internal discussion on this as well and no conclusion yet
David: same for us
fantasai: we could put the part about not doing it unless there is consent
<cwilso> +1
fantasai: we can adopt what david has and further refine
https://
chris: current is more that just consent
florian: we can adopt unless it's too strong
chris: yes, this is fine
<cwilso> +!
<cwilso> er, +1
Proposed: Adopt David's proposed text and continue the discussion for further tweaking
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to make a small point about recording of meetings
Jeff: I noticed a pushback from Dom.
Florian: it's against my further restriction, not against David's text
Jeff: also there is text that I'd like to see in the Process and not the Guide
… the current proposed text doesn't balance things well
fantasai: you're asking on the informative, not the normative part?
Jeff: correct
<wseltzer> +1 to deleting the Note
David: we could delete the Note and we could push all of the guidances to /Guide
wseltzer: the single normative paragraph should go in the Process, and the rest should go into the Guide
fantasai: would suggest to delete the first sentence of the note and keep the second, which is an example showing why the retention policy matters. But I'm ok with not having the note
florian: let's not have the Note for now
fantasai: fine
david: fine by me
Resolution: Adopt David's single paragraph policy and continue the discussion for further tweaking
<wseltzer> The text: [[No-one may record a meeting, or retain an automated transcript, unless the intent is announced at the start of the meeting, and no-one withholds consent. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur. The announcement must cover: (a) who will have access to the recording or transcript and (b) the purpose/use of it and (c) how it will be retained (e.g. privately, in a
<wseltzer> cloud service) and for how long.]]
Registries
<dsinger> Registries: see also <https://
fantasai: let's tackle the question about accepting the process overall and then there is a further refinement to consider
florian: the base branch is an evolution: separate track, no CR phase.
… shouldn't be controversial
… for the additional part, it's about publishing the registry tables in a separate technical report
… if we agree, there will be some details to work out
<dsinger> https://
david: are we ready to adopt https://
<dsinger> https://
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
Proposed: adopt https://
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss Registry Reports and Patent Policy
wseltzer: just noticed the exclusion from the patent policy
… not sure there is complete agreement
david: registry is purely informative
… implementation requirements are to go in Rec-track
wseltzer: better way to express that then
https://
Working Groups can also publish registries in order to document collections of values or other data that have no normative implementation requirements. Registries are generally companion to Recommendation Track documents which contain the related normative requirements, and are typically published in a separate registry report, although they can also be directly embedded in Recommendation Track
documents. The registry track requires wide review and consensus on what the registry will contain and how it will be managed. Once set up, changes to registry entries are lightweight and can even be done without a Working Group. See § 6.4 The Registry Track for details.
florian: since the reigstry track is not the rec-track, it's excluded from the patent policy construction
… we could tweak this sentence, but things that can be subject to the patent policy don't belong in the registry track
wseltzer: makes sense
… but let's avoid contention, so better phrasing would be good
fantasai: we could move text around after the merge
wseltzer: or eliminate the first clause, or better, the entire bullet point?
david: I can live with that
fantasai: it's good to remind folks about what's happening
… we don't talk about the patent policy otherwise in that section which is why it's confusing. The intro section should talk about it.
florian: preference for merging as-is and tweaking later
wseltzer: I'm ok with merge+tweak if we do the tweaks quickly
… we'll need a draft to PSIG soon
florian: ok to do the tweaks quicky
Resolution: adopt https://
https://
https://
new section defining registry data reports https://
<wseltzer> +1 to "tweaked version"
Florian: you can link to a separate document for the tables
https://
david: it seems simple enough
florian: you can always publish a /TR document in multiple files
fantasai: This is just about whether you can publish the tables under a different shortname from the registry definition
david: so if I want the registry definition and the table , can I do that under the same /TR?
plh: Trying to understand. have a document called a registry, publish on registry track
plh: Now you're proposing in order to publish separately the tables, need to add a new type of technical report called a "registry data report"
dsinger: So that you can back it by a different automated system
dsinger: registry data reports exist in this boundary state, they're not controlled by the Process
dsinger: are they technical report or not? Kindo fon the boundary
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest, BTW, that PSIG should be informed of registry plans to make sure they don't have advice.
cwilso: We should know PSIG about registries, btw
florian: soon, but not just yet, we have some sentence to tweak as wseltzer requested :)
florian: The registry report, when it contains everything, contains two pieces. one is the rules and the other is the table.s
florian: If you want you can have all of that in a REC
florian: You can also have it as a separate document on the Registry Track
florian: When you have both the rules and the tables, that's a Registry Report
florian: The question is, can you have the tables separate from the rules.
florian: I believe this is mostly not useful.
florian: Given we can have multiple files in a publication
florian: like CSS2.1 is multiple chapters
florian: ...
florian: The change we're discussing right now is whether we should allow the tables in a separate *technical report*
florian: If we don't adopt the change, you can put everything in a REC, or everything in a Registry Report.
florian: If we adopt the change, then can split the Registry into two reports, one for the rules and one for the tables
dsinger: Florian and I disagree on whether this is necessary
florian: I dislike it, I think it's unnecessary, but I can live with the way it's drafted rightnow
+1 to florian from fantasai
wseltzer: I support this change
wseltzer: I think it helps people who are familiar with IANA process
dsinger: I think we avoid the mistakes of ISO/IANA of hosting the registries in different organizations
dsinger: couldn't find tables for XXX for example, which is appalling
dsinger: I like what we have here
dsinger: My take is, given the inconclusiveness of the survey, send it out for review with
florian: My alternative proposal is leave it out for the year, if it's actually needed and requested, we can add it next year
florian: Wrt the survey, was "2 considered it harmful" and "2 thought it necessary". We followed up, one of the "harmful" ppl was just confused, and one of the "necessary" people concluded it's not actually necessary
plh: I like the flexibility of the proposed addition
plh: Makes things slightly more complex
plh: but gives a bit more flexibility also
dsinger: OK, let's merge with this. Fix it up so we can send to PSIG
dsinger: No decision is final, still have to get through AB and informal AC reveiw, and formal AC review
Action: wseltzer to do a patent-policy focused review of registries
florian: Don't like it, not objecting.
Resolution: Merge separate registry tables reports change.
fantasai: Do we want to highlight the change with <INS> or just leave it and let people notice or not?
dsinger: Let's not highlight the issue.
recording of meetings
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
jeff: I reread Dom's posting, and not convinced dsinger's text is consistent with it
jeff: Gives example of workshop and recording presentations without everyone's consent
wseltzer: Even for presentations, consent is required. Might be easier to get consent, but still require it
note-track
florian: Didn't do my homework on opening new issues, one on bikeshedding TAG documents, and the other on the switching-tracks question. I'll do that soon.
[discussion of meeting and review scheduling]
Meeting adjourned.