Meeting minutes
PSIG Report
wseltzer: I thought David was drafting a note for PSIG
florian: we're simplifying the wording. we have a draft of a note waiting on the pull request
wseltzer: ok, nothing new from PSIG yet until the note is sent
… making it clear what we need from them
P2021 Final cleanup
Improve the wording on normative requirements related to registry values
David: from https://
… any comment on that PR?
<fantasai> +1 to merge
David: can we approve this pull request?
… ok approved to merge #534
45-day rejoin window
David: from https://
… it's part of PP FAQ
… this is about adding it to the Process
florian: this is not a verbatim copy of the FAQ since it doesn't include good standing
… and we don't have good standing anymore
… imho, we shouldn't rush this one
wseltzer: alternative is drop the 45 days window because there is no authority for it
… this came up because we need to revise the FAQ for PP2020
… so we're looking at each question
<dsinger> from the FAQ: "Individuals who were in good standing before that Call for Participation may attend any meetings held within forty-five (45) days of the Call for Participation even if they have not yet formally rejoined the group (i.e., committed to the terms of the charter and patent policy).
<dsinger> "
wseltzer: we'd like a better source for the 45 window otherwise we're keeping people away from the groups
florian: you can participate as observer
… if that's not it, I'm not sure
jeff: it seems the concern is around good standing, or the lack of
… why don't we clarify the FAQ as well to remove the good standing
<TallTed> first have to decide what has authority (FAQ or this doc or some other doc); then all non-auth docs should be brought to match that auth
fantasai: if we don't put this in the document, for existing groups, the chairs aren't to prevent folks from attending
… so don't think this is problematic
… the text is a bit unclear. is it about rejoining or joining the group for the first time?
… I'm not too concerned by the way
plh: If we don't say, then when recharter, will kick everyone out of the group on that date
plh: This allows keeping people in the group
plh: through our systems
plh: we could [...]
florian: Are people able to make contributions without signing up to PP?
fantasai: does this apply to rejoining the group or joining the group in the first place?
wseltzer: it begins with "Individuals participating in the [=Working Group=] or [=Interest Group=] before that Call for Participation"
… what needs to be clarified/
fantasai: sounds good
dsinger: we can open a very large can of worms on policies
… but this is current practice
… the original FAQ was vague
florian: agree this is not creating new problems
wseltzer, maybe insert "When rechartering a group," or something at the start of the sentence?
florian: we can revisit this next year
"When a group is re-chartered"
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on observers
fantasai: suggestion: add "When a group is re-chartered" at the beginning
<TallTed> +1 "when rechartered"
wseltzer: ok
dsinger: ok, consensus on merging #531 with suggested edits
Reorganize the Process document
dsinger: from https://
dsinger: should we merge this before presenting for review?
florian: I can provide diffs but I'd like to land the PR
fantasai: we can be clear on whether we resolve to merge, let Florian figure out timing
dsinger: can we point folks to the pull request instead of merging?
florian: my intent is to have both versions in any case. I'd like the top of the tree to have the reorg
dsinger: any objection to merge then?
<wseltzer> sgtm
dsinger: ok, merge #529 with diffs
Provide facilities for the Team to maintain orphaned Notes
dsinger: from https://
florian: this allows the Team to make class 1 changes, as well as errata and team corrections
plh: doesn't solve updating the example besides adding a Note but it's a move in the right direction
dsinger: any objection?
fantasai: +1 to merge and let's keep the issue open
APA Chairs feedback
dsinger: from https://
florian: she wants Notes to have horizontal reviews, requesting all Notes to be first published as a draft
jeff: this could be a new issue for Notes, which we can debate for P2022. But for Statements, they have to go through horizontal reviews
florian, fantasai: +1
dsinger: the Notes are products from the Working Groups. For endorsement, you need Statement
dsinger: ok, no change this year.
dsinger: we'd like to address Notes and horizontal reviews for the next Process iteration
plh: should we rename the issue or creating a new one?
jeff: should be a new issue since we addressed it for Statements
dsinger: I'll respond on the issue
<jeff__> David++
CfC
+1 ship it
dsinger: we're closing the CfC at https://
Proposed: send Process 2021 to AB/W3M with a request to send to the AC
fantasai: I prompted the AB and Jeff prompted W3M
Process 2021 is current draft + today's pull requests
Resolution: send Process 2021 to AB/W3M with a request to send to the AC
AOB
florian: I'll do some clean-up through GitHub issues. Any non-addressed issue will be pushed to next iteration
dsinger: sure, create a milestone as needed
… we'll do a massive triage meeting soon
Next meeting
dsinger: I'm away for the next meeting
fantasai: I'll chair
… on June 9, if needed
[adjourned]
florian: feel free to look at the change section