13:51:31 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 13:51:31 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/12-w3process-irc 13:51:33 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:51:34 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group 13:54:38 TallTed has joined #w3process 13:59:51 plh has joined #w3process 14:01:43 Scribenick: fantasai 14:02:08 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2021May/0000.html 14:02:11 Chair: dsinger 14:02:25 present+ 14:02:57 present+ 14:02:58 present+ 14:03:07 present+ 14:03:14 present+ 14:03:34 present+ 14:05:08 present+ jeff 14:05:10 dsinger: Goal for today is to determine what P2021 Final Cleanup is 14:05:19 dsinger: to be Final Cleanup it needs to be wordsmithing 14:05:40 dsinger: florian, fantasai, and I did some triage 14:05:46 dsinger: Any changes to agenda? 14:05:52 i/dsinger: Goal/Topic: Agenda 14:05:57 Topic: Registries 14:06:02 dsinger: Update from PSIG? 14:06:20 wseltzer: PSIG wanted to get greater clarity about keeping normative requirements out of the registry definitions 14:06:30 wseltzer: Anything that expresses normative requirements should be in a REC-track document 14:06:30 strong +1 14:06:34 q+ 14:06:37 wseltzer: or in another document linked from the registry tables 14:06:50 jrosewell has joined #w3process 14:06:52 wseltzer: If we can give them that clarity, or help craft such language, then I think we can present that to PSIG 14:06:54 present+ 14:07:13 q+ 14:07:22 florian: This is something where we need clarity, but there is text in the spec already 14:07:45 florian: It feels they considered the problem in the abstract, but did they review the text 14:08:00 q- 14:08:06 ack fl 14:08:13 dsinger: We should write an email with the text to PSIG and if they don't like that text they can respond to that email 14:08:19 dsinger: Anything else from PSIG? 14:08:22 wseltzer: No I don't think so 14:08:27 Topic: Editor Update 14:08:34 dsinger: Anything from editors? 14:08:49 florian: Nope, just need to triage into close / needs fiddling / defer 14:09:05 dsinger: I don't see anything not on the agenda that needs to be raised, anyone else? 14:09:19 Topic: Agenda+ to Close 14:09:34 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/322 14:09:43 dsinger: Believe handled by work on tooling, objections to closing? 14:09:50 RESOLVED: Close 322 14:09:57 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/236 14:10:10 dsinger: Addressed by split of NOTE and REC track, any objections to close? 14:10:15 RESOLVED: Close 236 14:10:23 jeff_ has joined #w3process 14:10:25 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/351 14:11:04 plh: So in the future, the answer to 236 will be yes? 14:11:06 florian: yes 14:11:29 florian: For 351, Jeff wants to close the issue after P2021 goes into effect, but it's been addressed in the draft 14:11:36 dsinger: this is confusing, would prefer to close 14:11:56 RESOLVED: Close 351 14:12:04 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/38 14:12:11 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63 14:12:27 dsinger: Solved by https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/526 14:12:32 q+ 14:12:49 wseltzer: LGTM 14:12:57 ack jef 14:12:57 dsinger: PR looks straightforward 14:13:25 chaals has joined #w3process 14:14:00 [re-review of 351 now that Jeff has sound] 14:14:14 jeff_: Closing 351 WFM 14:14:22 dsinger: 526 PR, any objections? 14:14:49 RESOLVED: Accept PR 526, closing 38 and 63 14:15:09 Topic: Pull Requests 14:15:23 florian: Let's not look at "reorganize the document" first 14:15:33 florian: Should maybe look at 519 or ... 14:15:37 LGTM 14:16:00 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/519 14:16:29 Subtopic: Issue 338 Where Decisions Can Be Made 14:16:31 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/338 14:16:49 florian: I think most of this has already been addressed through Tooling section and Minutes section etc. 14:17:03 florian: But there was a leftover sentence saying that decisions can be made in person or in email, period. 14:17:10 q+ 14:17:13 florian: So this PR just generalizes from email so we can do that in e.g. GH 14:17:18 dsinger: sgtm, any comments? 14:17:38 ack jef 14:17:38 jeff_: Sounds very clean and elegant 14:17:46 RESOLVED: Accept PR 519 and close 338 14:18:00 Subtopic: Rewrite the Introduction 14:18:20 s/Rewrite the Introduction/Alternate AC Rep/ 14:18:35 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/505 14:18:37 +1 14:18:44 florian: wseltzer wrote a PR, people seem to be happy 14:18:53 dsinger: [reads the new sentence] 14:18:54 +1 14:18:58 dsinger: I think it's great. 14:19:04 +1 14:19:09 dsinger: wseltzer gave us the details of how that's expected to work in the issue 14:19:20 RESOLVED: Accept PR 505 and close issue 338 14:19:20 q+ 14:19:41 ack jef 14:19:52 jeff_: wseltzer, you had asked questions that are in 505 14:20:04 jeff_: dsinger and I commented, anything further you need for the questions? 14:20:10 wseltzer: Thanks, I think we're good with the proposed implementation 14:20:15 wseltzer: those details don't go into the Process 14:20:37 wseltzer: So I think we can close the issue, and if people want a distinct issue for the implementation, I'll put it in the Guide and discuss over there 14:20:46 florian: Also mostly seems fine, so not sure there's an open issue 14:20:56 dsinger: Leave it in the hands of the Team to redirect discussion as needed 14:21:02 Subtopic: Rewrite the Intro 14:21:11 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/423 14:21:22 florian: dsinger proposed a rewrite of the intro on the ML awhile ago 14:21:28 florian: This PR does that 14:21:39 florian: This is a smaller part of the general reorg of the document, but isolate part of it 14:21:43 q+ 14:21:45 florian: This is a medium-size editorial change 14:21:57 florian: fantasai and I made some tweaks, but it's largely what dsinger wrote 14:22:13 q- 14:22:15 dsinger: My thought was to give an introduction of "what does this document do" and "how do you navigate it", a type of roadmap 14:22:42 q+ 14:22:42 florian: I think the three of us think it's good, question is if anyone else has concerns 14:22:46 dsinger: ... 14:22:57 florian: The reorg changes the order of sections, but not really the content of the sections 14:23:03 ack jef 14:23:07 florian: so reorg doesn't affect intro 14:23:29 jeff_: I started to read, and in the first sentence I see the word "fairness" 14:23:42 jeff_: which at a human level I understand it 14:23:59 jeff_: but saw some discussion about US Congress proposals where it was causing some consternation... 14:24:10 dsinger: Interesting point, but that phrase is surviving from existing intro 14:24:22 jeff_: OK, I guess it's good by definition :) 14:24:27 florian: At least, we are not making things worse :) 14:24:40 q? 14:24:42 dsinger: Would welcome PRs to modernize further, but the goal here was to reorganize 14:25:46 [review of what's changed vs not changed in the intro] 14:27:11 florian: If we leave this meeting with only this PR and the reorg pending, we're in good shape 14:27:23 dsinger: Jeff, do you want me to leave this open one more cycle? 14:27:50 jeff_: ... 14:28:03 dsinger: OK, I'm ok to leave this open for more review 14:28:10 dsinger: Does open the question of further improvements to intro also 14:28:13 rrsagent, pointer? 14:28:13 See https://www.w3.org/2021/05/12-w3process-irc#T14-28-13 14:28:19 Topic: Agenda+ Issues 14:28:41 dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AAgenda%2B+type%3Aissue 14:28:55 florian: Some are closed just now 14:29:12 dsinger: Here we can either decide to act, or defer another cycle, or mark final cleanup 14:29:38 Subtopic: "Reference Draft" and "Other Charter" 14:29:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/114 14:29:58 dsinger: Proposal is to update the labels here 14:30:03 dsinger: Other Charter -> Previous Charter 14:30:14 fantasai: +1 to Previosu Charter 14:30:19 florian: +1 14:30:21 +1 14:30:51 q+ 14:32:22 fantasai: Actually, is the Other Charter the Adopted Working Draft charter or the Reference Draft Charter? 14:32:26 ?: Reference Draft's charter 14:32:35 s/?/plh/ 14:32:41 fantasai: Then use term "Reference Charter" because there could be a charter in between 14:32:56 jeff_: This was asked for by PSIG, should we run it by PSIG? 14:33:13 dsinger: I doubt there's a problem, wseltzer could you just inform PSIG and come back if that happens to be a problem? 14:33:21 ACTION wseltzer: Alert PSIG about name change 14:33:27 RESOLVED: Rename Other Charter to Reference Charter 14:33:27 q- 14:34:15 Subtopic: Suspension/Removal for Cause 14:34:23 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/312 14:34:43 PR in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/528 14:34:51 florian: We had two parallel threads discussing this section 14:34:56 florian: For multiple reasons we wanted to rework 14:34:59 florian: one thread landed a long time ago 14:35:09 florian: so I got confused a bit about what happened 14:35:16 florian: This PR incorporates some of the suggestions in this thread 14:35:38 dsinger: We had text in DF that improves this generally, and this is pulling back that general improvement? 14:35:43 q? 14:35:49 florian: We reached consensus awhile back, and but didn't make edits 14:35:55 dsinger: Any thoughts on 528? 14:36:10 RESOLVED: Accept PR 528 and close issue 312 14:36:49 subtopic: Streamlining Horizontal Reviews 14:36:56 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/347 14:37:11 florian: We closed PR because we're pursuing in Guide 14:37:20 florian: Idk if closing or deferring, but not doing it this cycle either way 14:37:27 florian: but maybe closing makes sense, since we closed the PR? 14:37:36 dsinger: Huge discussion 14:37:44 florian: We never came up with something everyone was happy with, and eventually gave up 14:37:57 [ This is more or less handled in https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/ ] 14:38:01 dsinger: I'd like to close 14:38:08 dsinger: in favor of documenting practice in /Guide 14:38:23 RESOLVED: Close 347 14:38:32 Subtopic: Rename "Candidate Recommendation" 14:38:40 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/402 14:39:09 dsinger: This is a term of art. I think disruption by renaming is worse than any clarity we can gain here 14:39:12 florian: agreed 14:39:19 RESOLVED: Close 402 no change 14:39:25 Subtopic: Abandoning a Note 14:39:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/501 14:40:02 [scribe loses track of conversation] 14:40:16 [but basically ppl are agreeing with each other based on comments Florian posted] 14:40:35 RESOLVED: Close #501 no change 14:40:48 github: none 14:41:02 q+ 14:41:06 subtopic: Naming W3C Statements 14:41:09 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/508 14:41:24 florian: When we opened the issue, we weren't entirely sure about name, so opened issue to track separately 14:41:32 florian: but I think we're good, close no change 14:41:40 plh: I've started talking about this, and nobody has complained about the name. Seems it's a good name. 14:41:42 ack plh 14:41:53 RESOLVED: Close #508 no change (keep name Statements) 14:42:07 subtopic: Draft/Candidate Registries 14:42:14 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/516 14:42:27 plh: We have Draft/Snapshot for recommendation 14:42:35 plh: equivalents with Registry isn't as straightforward 14:42:48 plh: could decide to make no change, just want to make sure we're aware of those things 14:43:13 florian: Draft appears in "Working Draft" , "Draft Note", and "Candidate XXX Draft" 14:43:34 dsinger: Should we leave this to editors and plh? 14:43:52 RESOLVED: Close 516 no change 14:44:20 Last AC review https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AAC-review+type%3Aissue+-label%3AAgenda%2B 14:44:20 Topic: AC Review Review 14:44:45 dsinger: These came up in previous reviews of the Process 14:44:50 dsinger: Anything we should address? 14:44:59 florian: I think we should close 1st item 14:45:05 florian: We're not going to do that 14:45:12 q+ 14:45:30 ack jef 14:45:48 dsinger: We've got such strong branding around our names, we should close this 14:46:30 RESOLVED: Close #446 14:46:41 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/446 14:47:08 i/florian: We're/subtopic: Renaming CR / removing REC 14:47:14 q+ 14:47:18 subtopic: Reaching Recommendation 14:47:26 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/443 14:47:27 q+ re close 410 14:47:35 q- 14:47:35 jeff_: I'm starting to see this problem, lots of confusion 14:47:40 [some discussion] 14:48:08 RESOLVED: Defer to next year 14:48:18 q+ 14:48:24 subtopic: Increasing voter turnout in AC reviews 14:48:27 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/410 14:48:40 q- 14:48:41 wseltzer: I suggest closing based on AB discussion of the 5% review threshold 14:49:07 dsinger: So deferring to practice / guidelines / AB, no Process change? 14:49:19 q+ 14:49:21 wseltzer: SGTM 14:49:33 ack me 14:49:33 wseltzer, you wanted to discuss close 410 14:49:35 ack ws 14:49:39 ack jef 14:50:01 subtopic: Voting 14:50:10 jeff_: Propose to cwilso to close this issue 14:50:33 jeff_: we're doing his experiment, so maybe we can fix the Process 14:50:45 cwilso: I defer to Michael Champion on this one 14:51:23 dsinger: I don't think it's going to make any difference in what we do 14:51:34 q? 14:52:00 dsinger: propose that Editors are instructed to remove the sentence and close issue 60 14:52:17 cwilso: I'll note that Michael is not on this call and probably didn't expect it to be taken up today 14:52:32 jeff_: We should surely reach out to him and explain 14:53:00 fantasai: This is more than 2min, let's move on 14:53:10 dsinger: Let's mark for P2021 and then come back to it next week 14:53:36 florian: That's it for this list 14:53:41 Topic: 2021 Milestone 14:53:46 dsinger: Quite a few issues on this list 14:53:52 florian: we closed a bunch 14:54:08 florian: 1st three are addressed by combo of intro rewrite and the reorg 14:54:24 florian: Guidance isn't a Process question 14:54:33 dsinger: defining "independent" is a thorny problem we won't solve quickly 14:54:41 dsinger: substantive changes for Charter reviews is ... 14:54:45 q+ 14:54:48 q- 14:54:52 florian: I would like to address this issue, don't believe we can do it easily 14:54:55 wseltzer: I do not disagree 14:55:12 florian: Main reason is that wseltzer and I strongly disagree on this isssue, so unless want to observe us fighting can't fix now :) 14:56:13 jeff_: 337? 14:56:22 florian: It's not exactly incorrect, but we're rewriting for DF 14:56:32 florian: so highlighting a process that's about to change doesn't seem constructive to me 14:56:45 dsinger: Seems not a candidate for 2021 14:56:48 dsinger: so leave it open 14:56:54 Topic: Reorganizing the Process Document 14:57:16 dsinger: document grown over time, not well organized 14:57:25 dsinger: My suggestion was to reorganize as [summary] 14:57:38 dsinger: Intention is that we do not make any substantive change, just reorganize to make easier to fine 14:57:50 dsinger: big downside is that a diff using HTML diff service is... everything is different 14:57:55 q+ 14:57:59 florian: This isn't that bad, actually. In terms of preparing for the AC 14:58:10 florian: I will make two diffs, one of everything except reorg 14:58:13 florian: and one is just the reorg 14:58:17 ack jeff 14:58:25 florian: So if people trust that editorial is editorial, they can check the rest 14:58:31 jeff_: I want to applaud you and editors for working on this 14:58:53 jeff_: Most changes to Process are local 14:58:58 jeff_: I can review easily 14:59:09 jeff_: When we do this kind of document restructure, even if intended to be editorial 14:59:20 jeff_: and time needed to look at here is with/without restructure 14:59:28 jeff_: even if I trust everyone, need to verify truly editorial 14:59:33 jeff_: So I think we need to go ahead with doing it 14:59:41 jeff_: but want to make sure we have a disciplined way to review both all the changes 14:59:44 jeff_: and separately the restructure 14:59:53 jeff_: Don't want people to not review closely 15:00:13 dsinger: Florian's proposal is to be able to describe substantive changes as a diff, and then apply this as a final reorg 15:00:31 florian: I wouldn't do two branches, but like for P2020 15:00:38 florian: would have two diffs 15:00:43 florian: That I can do 15:01:10 jeff_: Need docment to stabilize, then review 15:01:23 florian: My suggestion is for me to fold in all the changes, and then rebase the reorg on top of that 15:01:39 florian: and then I suggest we in parallel start the W3M/AB reviews and the review of the reorg 15:01:49 florian: Yes, reorg needs to be reviewed, but it's a different type of change 15:02:10 Florian: reorg will be ready in a few days 15:02:20 David: I just need to know if we will do the reorg this year? 15:02:30 david: then we will work out details 15:02:30 i/Florian/scribe+ jeff_ 15:02:35 david: Objections? 15:02:41 david: I see no objections 15:02:54 David: In the next meeting we will have the two documents from the editor 15:03:00 ... all the changes without the reorg 15:03:05 ... separately the reorg 15:03:17 ... we will look for formal consensus to send it forward to W3M and AB 15:03:22 q? 15:03:31 ... A phenomenal morning 15:03:41 Fantasai: When we send out these documents 15:03:56 ... can we send the CfC for the process doc for the AB and W3M 15:03:59 ... so we are not waiting for the next meeting 15:04:03 David: I will do so. 15:04:24 q+ 15:04:52 fantasai: can W3M start review when we send out the CFC? 15:04:54 jeff_: Yes, we can do that 15:04:55 fantasai: Can we get immediate attention from W3M 15:04:57 ack ws 15:04:58 Jeff: Definitely 15:05:14 Wendy: I'll clear off with PSIG on registries