13:53:33 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 13:53:33 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/24-w3process-irc 13:53:35 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:53:36 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group 13:59:00 plh has joined #w3process 14:00:03 rrsagent, generate minutes v2 14:00:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/24-w3process-minutes.html plh 14:00:41 jeff has joined #w3process 14:00:44 present+ 14:00:57 fantasai has changed the topic to: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2019May/0000.html 14:02:03 present+ 14:02:14 present+ dsinger 14:02:17 present+ plh 14:02:17 present+ 14:02:22 present+ 14:03:11 TallTed has joined #w3process 14:03:52 present+ Ted_Thibodeau 14:04:17 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2021Mar/0010.html 14:04:31 present+ 14:04:38 scribe+ 14:05:07 David: trying to do some clean-ups on our issues 14:05:34 Florian: addition of 310 and 313 were a mistake. I don't recall doing them 14:05:53 Topic: #509 14:06:01 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/509 14:06:15 GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/509 14:06:37 Florian: there is a proposal on the table for #509. 14:06:55 TallTed has changed the topic to: w3process CG 2021-03-24 Agenda (revised): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2021Mar/0010.html 14:06:59 ... (summarizing the proposal) 14:07:24 ... doing rec-tracks, then note, then rec-track could introduce submarine patents 14:07:54 ... ... would be confusing to allow it 14:08:15 ... not to be encouraged 14:09:07 fantasai: if you switch back rather than restarting, you retain previous commitment. but this is confusing and people might not understand it. But better than restarting at FPWD 14:09:11 q? 14:09:36 ... we could allow for that and the patent implication are a bit complicated 14:09:54 david: this is a case that shouldn't arise 14:09:54 s/better/strictly better/ 14:10:16 q+ re Patents 14:10:40 Ted: having been in a # of groups. when a group can discontinued, it goes into Notes. The intent is that the Note can be picked up by a subsequent working group 14:10:59 Florian: you can move to discontinued Note (a parked state) 14:11:20 Ted: then you need to inform the groups about this 14:11:24 q? 14:11:33 ... we have groups in this case right now 14:11:42 Florian: it's not in the current process yet 14:12:02 s/discontinued Note/discontinued Draft/ 14:12:05 ack ws 14:12:05 wseltzer, you wanted to discuss Patents 14:12:37 wseltzer: our goal is to understand the provenance of the contributions and make informed decisions. You don't need to prohibit 14:12:48 ... if the contributions are fine, why not? 14:12:54 q? 14:13:06 Florian: we can move to "should not" 14:13:23 ... I don't want to encourage folks 14:13:36 weiler has joined #w3process 14:14:11 ... "should not", with someone to check what you're doing 14:14:29 dsinger: don't need to solve this today 14:14:30 q? 14:14:46 Topic: Define minutes 14:15:01 dsinger: #511, #512 14:15:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/511 14:16:06 Florian: since we talk about recordings of meetings, we need to define that you don't need permissions for minutes 14:16:12 q+ 14:16:13 q? 14:16:28 ack ws 14:16:51 wseltzer: I recommend avoiding defining the precision of minutes 14:17:23 wseltzer: a summary of the conversation is fine for example 14:17:33 ... we don't need to be prescriptive 14:17:48 "Relevant details of the discussion...?" 14:18:07 q+ 14:18:08 "summary" 14:18:28 florian: record of the discussion is required but you don't have to be precise 14:18:31 ack TallTed 14:18:43 Ted: how about "relevant details" ? 14:19:15 Florian: I'll look into the sentence more 14:19:43 q+ 14:19:56 david: are people ok with us defining minutes? (details to be worked on) 14:19:58 ack jeff 14:20:11 Jeff: do we really need to define minutes? 14:20:49 florian: we are talking recordings and automatic transcript. if we don't distinguish minutes from those, it may create confusion 14:21:31 q? 14:21:36 [going back and forth on whether we need this or not] 14:22:37 Jeff: if it becomes a point of debate and we cannot close on it, it's not worth blocking on it] 14:23:16 q? 14:23:19 q? 14:23:43 Topic: #312 14:24:33 Florian: the pull request was worked and agreed on. #312 is no longer relevant imho. 14:24:33 q? 14:24:59 david: ok so once the director free branch is done, we can close 14:25:31 Topic: #513 14:26:34 q? 14:27:01 Florian: do we need further work on this or not? I'm fine not adding a Note 14:27:05 q? 14:27:16 ... we can remove the Note and see how Ralph reacts 14:28:18 Resolved: absent strong objection, we will remove the Note 14:28:38 .... by end of March 14:29:10 Topic: #505 14:29:24 David: we need to ask the Team if it's possible to have alternate AC Reps 14:29:43 q+ 14:29:49 Florian: the Process can say it's allowed and let the systeam look into it 14:30:04 ack ws 14:30:34 wseltzer: this is a big change to the functioning of W3C. It could have real change on how the body operates 14:30:59 ... so I'd rather have a discussion with the Members if they like the proposal 14:31:29 ... the member relation team have been fielding other questions like how we communicate with AC Reps, etc. 14:31:35 .... I can take this question to them 14:31:40 dsinger: ok 14:32:03 GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/505 14:32:19 dsinger: this is intended to resolve when the individual is away 14:32:43 Topic: #514 14:33:06 dsinger: just a heads-up. if you have opinions, please comment 14:33:19 q? 14:33:44 Topic: #436 14:33:59 fantasai: I think we're ready to merge 14:34:09 florian: Mike Smith has an objection to this 14:34:17 1+ 14:34:41 q+ 14:34:52 q+ 14:35:05 cwilso: I got pushback internally as well 14:35:20 ... "this will be a fair amount of work for the team to manage" 14:35:40 q? 14:35:41 ... the tooling with GitHub is valuable and we don't want to loose the efficiency 14:35:46 ack cwilso 14:35:57 s/loose/lose/ 14:35:59 ... to make any change will require a lot of pre-repo in order to make it work 14:36:01 q+ 14:36:04 ack fant 14:36:24 fantasai: it's a "SHOULD", not a "MUST". we understand there is a lot of work to get there 14:36:34 q+ 14:36:39 q+ 14:36:44 ... it's not acceptable to have documents that are not in our control 14:36:44 q? 14:36:55 q+ 14:37:18 [the counterpoint is that we should be able to delegate tooling to others with more specific expertise there] 14:37:21 fantasai: we have the backing of the AB and we should merge the pull request 14:37:37 delegating tooling is fine. Delegating ultimate control of our publications is not. 14:37:52 q? 14:37:55 ack flo 14:38:20 q+ to comment on cleanup 14:38:31 florian: I agree with the assessments. we will need a fair amount of socializing to make it so but that shouldn't block progress 14:38:41 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/436#issuecomment-804819731 14:38:50 ... setting this up will require work but it's not hard 14:38:54 q? 14:39:00 ... am I missing something? 14:39:01 ack cwilso 14:39:27 cwilso: I'm trying to channel a bunch of other people feedback. the per-repo seems small 14:39:46 ... the preferred trusted URLs are not just w3.org 14:39:58 ... we have links to github.io all over the place 14:40:11 ... I get why it's bad but it will be a large amoount of work 14:40:16 q+ 14:40:27 ... I know that a bunch of folks will be resistant to that 14:41:00 florian: but unless we start with W3C, we can't start fixing things 14:41:06 q- 14:41:19 q? 14:41:22 ack jeff 14:41:27 s/bad/a good thing to try to address/ 14:41:48 Jeff: I have long advocated with those changes should be "SHOULD" 14:42:22 ... you set the direction, put in place, may find out it's a lot of work, decide whether it would become a MUST or not 14:42:39 .... did anyone go back with the objectors and propose a SHOULD? 14:42:48 it *is* a SHOULD atm 14:42:56 ... rather than having those discussion 14:42:59 q? 14:43:04 ack plh 14:43:11 scribe+ 14:43:14 plh: ... 14:43:23 plh: I encouraged to comment on GH, and glad did 14:43:30 plh: Some groups will resist 14:43:31 scribe- 14:43:38 plh: We're saying it's ok to use GH, but not github.io 14:43:44 plh: We're using github.com URLs all over the place 14:43:53 plh: there's a mental block we have to face, and justify that is going to be difficult 14:44:00 plh: For better or worse, we're using github 14:44:17 plh: Yes, we have backups. If domain goes down to tomorrow, we're in trouble, because all our links will break 14:44:30 plh: So we're going to get resistance from the groups 14:44:47 q? 14:44:47 plh: If we can eliminate the time between ED and TR by encouraging publication asap, my hope is we can avoid these problems 14:44:56 i/plh: .../scribenick: fantasai/ 14:45:04 scribe+ 14:45:04 dsinger: Encourage Team Contact discussion 14:45:11 s/down to tomorrow/down tomorrow/ 14:45:15 dsinger: I found a document that says "This is an Editor's Draft and is the product of a Working Group" 14:45:24 dsinger: which is a contradiction. ED is edit'rs work, WG's work is WD 14:45:40 dsinger: Also anyone can fork a repo, and have documents that claim to be W3C documents 14:45:53 dsinger: Is it a W3C doc? If it's on w3.org it is. 14:45:56 q+ 14:45:59 dsinger: It's not just a question of URL, but also brand identity 14:46:07 dsinger: We're in a mess here 14:46:15 q+ 14:46:19 ack ds 14:46:19 dsinger, you wanted to comment on cleanup 14:46:24 q+ 14:46:25 dsinger: groups have found publishing WDs to be onerous, by introducing proxies to github.io can make it easier 14:46:28 dsinger: .. 14:46:34 q+ to say we cannot use w3.org btw 14:46:45 dsinger: sometimes groups let editor do as s/he wants until corrected, especially in earlier phases. That's OK 14:46:54 dsinger: need to communicate that WG's draft is the Working Draft 14:47:03 dsinger: Set up whatever automatic systems needed to make the WD live on /TR 14:47:09 q? 14:47:19 ack flo 14:47:37 florian: I suggest we have a fair amount of outreach and documentation to do, and we shoudl do it, but text in PR is in line with resolutions from AB so let's merge it 14:47:45 florian: Would like to encourage work on /TR 14:47:57 florian: but not all things groups produce are on /TR 14:48:09 ack plh 14:48:09 plh, you wanted to say we cannot use w3.org btw 14:48:15 florian: We have references to other types of documents that are also on github.io and need a better home 14:48:24 plh: I should prioritize getting work on /TR 14:48:34 plh: reducing that time, to get that problem to go away 14:48:43 plh: We're not proposing to stop github.io, but to put a proxy on it. 14:48:53 plh: we'll have to create a new domain for that for security reasons 14:49:05 q? 14:49:08 ack ws 14:49:09 q- 14:49:09 plh: I'll be focusing on /TR for the next few months 14:49:28 proxy thru `github-io.w3.org`? just a thought 14:49:53 dsinger: I think Team needs to have a discussion, getting back to state where EDs and WDs are distinguished and /TR represents our current activity 14:50:07 q? 14:50:11 fantasai: I think we should merge the PR now 14:50:16 I think you'll see complaints 14:50:20 dsinger: Anyone oppose merging the PR now and iterating? 14:51:10 dsinger: going to see complaints 14:51:16 fantasai: Yes, and we need to discuss. But we need to move forward. 14:51:21 q+ 14:51:22 cwilso: You're going to see complaints 14:51:36 cwilso: In an ideal world we would have not lost control, but there's a lot of resistance to that 14:51:52 cwilso: It's a SHOULD, not a MUST, but there are a all kinds of different ways that URLs are being used 14:51:56 cwilso: in how drafts are dealt with 14:52:00 q+ 14:52:07 cwilso: and going back to old way of using /TR is ... 14:52:13 q? 14:52:19 q+ to say persuasion through easier tools, rather than procedural compuslion 14:52:21 florian: If you publish WDs frequently and only refer to that, you don't have a problem 14:52:34 florian: You can also not do that, and set up a proxy and you're good 14:52:46 dsinger: most of the resistance I'm getting is from the Team 14:52:48 but that's not what a large proportion of editors do, and how they work 14:53:04 q+ to hear the guidance to the team 14:53:04 dsinger: If Team Contacts aren't willing to do this, we have a problem 14:53:42 jeff: I'm hearing AC rep pushing back 14:53:55 q+ 14:53:58 jeff: and he's AC for a lot of editors, so a lot of push back 14:54:10 jeff: Agree we need to move forward, but need to make assignments to move forward 14:54:23 jeff: Give an action to plh to broker some conversations between Florian/fantasai and Team Contacts 14:54:40 jeff: And an action to cwilso to broker a conversation between Fantasai/Florian and resistance in his company 14:54:42 I am willing to accept that action. 14:54:53 jeff: Let's have that dialog 14:55:05 dsinger: also discussions around /TR for WDs etc. 14:56:36 fantasai: [we should merge the PR and point people at the draft, the point of the draft is to have something to look at ] 14:56:40 dsinger: concern people will be upset 14:57:14 florian: Should I set up an editor's draft so we can point at a document? 14:57:19 prresent+ 14:57:21 florian: more readable than a PR 14:57:29 q? 14:57:29 scribenick: plh 14:57:38 ack jeff 14:57:51 ack ws 14:57:51 wseltzer, you wanted to say persuasion through easier tools, rather than procedural compuslion and to hear the guidance to the team 14:58:00 q- 14:58:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/24-w3process-minutes.html weiler 14:58:22 wseltzer: How can we make W3C the most attractive place to work? If we're hearing from editor's that procedural requirements are a problem, then we need to take that into account. 14:58:27 q? 14:58:29 dsinger: We want to have a good brand and be a good place to work. 14:58:29 q+ 14:58:35 wseltzer: how can we make W3C the most attractive platform to work in? If we get pushback, we should listen to it 14:58:39 ack weil 14:58:41 ack weiler 14:59:05 weiler: what about using a downgraded tech? 14:59:27 dsinger: trying to influence the Chinese gvt through our decisions is unlikely 14:59:44 weiler: I'm concerned about them imposing a downgraded solution onus 15:00:05 s/onus/on us/ 15:00:07 florian: there is nothing we can do anything about it unless we're willing to ignore folks in China 15:00:28 ... it's unfortunate but we can't fix it 15:01:01 Topic: Wrapping 15:01:24 dsinger: please clean up our pull requests/ discussions on GH 15:01:34 ... we avoided wide review so far 15:01:47 fantasai: let's close that since it's covered in the Guide 15:02:13 s/prresent+// 15:02:15 ... propose to close #130 15:02:59 RESOLVED: close #130 15:03:19 q? 15:27:30 jeff_ has joined #w3process 15:42:55 rrsagent, generate minutes v2 15:42:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/24-w3process-minutes.html plh 15:43:03 zakim, bye 15:43:03 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been fantasai, jeff, plh, dsinger, cwilso, tantek, jrosewell, florian, wseltzer, !, Ted_Thibodeau, TallTed 15:43:03 Zakim has left #w3process 15:43:07 rrsagent, generate minutes v2 15:43:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/24-w3process-minutes.html plh