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