13:53:48 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 13:53:48 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/25-w3process-irc 13:53:50 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:53:51 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group 14:03:40 q+ 14:04:06 q- 14:05:06 q+ 14:05:18 present+ 14:05:39 present+ 14:05:39 present+ 14:05:46 present+ 14:06:11 regrets+ Jeff 14:06:12 regrets+ Jeff 14:06:35 ScribeNick: fantasai 14:06:36 jrosewell has joined #w3process 14:06:41 present+ 14:07:55 wseltzer: Note that FOs are technically Member-confidential ... 14:08:18 jrosewell: I'm OK with having this discussion in Process CG 14:08:46 Topic: Results of AC Ballot 14:09:08 q+ 14:09:12 dsinger: we have 22 supporting adoption as-is, one suggesting changes, one FO suggesting changes which is jrosewell who is happily here 14:09:35 q- 14:09:41 ack florian 14:09:46 Topic: Process 2021, formal objections 14:09:48 florian: We defined a term that we don't use, and was wondering why that was 14:10:04 florian: I reached out to explain that the term will be used in Director-Free Process 14:10:15 florian: and we happened to land this bit here 14:10:20 s/here/first/ 14:10:43 florian: so that should be no problem 14:10:49 plh: Can we get that discussion archived? 14:10:51 florian: I'll ask 14:10:57 dsinger: Great, so consensus solution on that one 14:11:09 dsinger: Next issue was the FO from jrosewell, listed in the agenda 14:11:21 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2021-07-16#normative 14:11:26 dsinger: jrosewell, what documents that are referenced concern you? 14:11:38 jrosewell: all of them, because if they change they change the Membership Agreement 14:11:56 florian: Lots of references, but vast majority are non-normative 14:12:07 florian: CEPC and Patent Policy are normatively referenced 14:12:27 plh: Collaborator's Agreement, conflict policy, and collaborator's ??? 14:12:30 q+ 14:12:41 jrosewell: My suggestion is to use dated references 14:12:47 CEPC, Collaborators, Pubrules 14:13:01 jrosewell: So e.g. if CEPC changes to say that anyone in a red shirt is inviolation in CEPC, it would be clear that it is required by Membership Agreement 14:13:18 q+ 14:13:49 --> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2021-07-16#normative Normative references 14:14:03 plh: undated references are CEPC, Collaborators, and Pubrules 14:14:14 plh: CEPC is updated by AC approval 14:14:22 dsinger: Same is true for Patent Policy 14:14:25 q- 14:14:30 dsinger: so covered by going through same update policy as Process itself 14:14:40 plh: ... 14:14:46 plh: unsure if ever have a dated version 14:14:53 wseltzer: Currently-linked document was updated in 2015 14:14:54 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/06-invited-expert.html 14:15:14 plh: normative reference is a redirect, so could change it to that version 14:15:18 q+ 14:15:31 ack florian 14:15:37 dsinger: Do we have set of documents of concern? 14:15:59 q? 14:16:15 florian: See the Normative References section 14:16:26 dsinger: Some of those just define terms, e.g. RFC2119 14:16:36 florian: CEPC goes through its own update cycle 14:17:10 florian: It means we can't update them until updating Process, but they go through ballot process on their own 14:17:35 florian: Collaborators Agreement is signed by the collaborators, so which version is relevant to the signer only 14:17:56 florian: wrt pubrules, the authority to judge whether a document is appropriate or not is delegated to the Team 14:18:09 florian: that they document it and use tools for it is part of their judgement 14:18:23 florian: ... 14:18:26 florian: document license 14:18:59 q+ 14:19:05 florian: Final point, note that FOs are technically resolved by Director. We can suggest changes to the Director, but can only suggest 14:19:13 dsinger: it is our job to try to find a consensus solution 14:19:14 q? 14:19:22 q? 14:19:26 ack ws 14:19:29 dsinger: Document license is referenced by ... 14:19:46 wseltzer: The Document License has also been updated following a Member review process, so that is also subject to Member review 14:19:55 wseltzer: want to second what Florian said about the review cycle 14:20:05 q+ to talk about pubrules 14:20:17 wseltzer: What we've done rather than trying to synchronize everything is, we've given each the Member review and had it go into effect when approved by the Membership and Director 14:20:22 dsinger: there are 2 approaches 14:20:40 dsinger: either change to dated documents, and approval happens during approval of Process itself 14:20:52 dsinger: other is to have approval of each reference 14:20:55 q+ to suggest we add the doc-license document to section 11 14:21:07 dsinger: we've been taking the second approach 14:21:10 q? 14:21:15 ack jr 14:21:27 jrosewell: Trying to avoid ambiguity, articulated it nicely 14:21:40 jrosewell: if the latest version of document prevails, then simply one sentence is needed to say that 14:21:47 jrosewell: so that lawyer can be clear about the interpretation 14:22:03 jrosewell: if the other option is taken, which I prefer, with dated version used then there's no need for an explanation because linking to specific version 14:22:21 jrosewell: reason I prefer latter resolution because Members can see impact of changes to membership agreement once a year 14:22:26 jrosewell: rather than many times a year 14:22:34 jrosewell: I could go either way 14:22:38 jrosewell: but prefer that option 14:22:44 q? 14:22:49 jrosewell: Main concern is to make sure it's clear what's meant 14:22:52 dsinger: Agree to be clear 14:23:07 dsinger: Need to be clear what set of agreements were in effect on a particular date 14:23:10 dsinger: in case of a dispute 14:23:22 dsinger: They all maintain a history trace, right? Is that true of all of them? 14:23:28 plh: I would be surprised if not the case 14:23:37 plh: even for documents only on our severs, we have version history 14:23:41 wseltzer: Yes for Document license, Patent Policy 14:23:45 plh: can find the history from 10 or 20 years ago 14:23:50 plh: don't expose to outside, but it's there 14:23:59 dsinger: for Process there's a Previous Version link also 14:24:06 florian: Patent Policy etc. also have that 14:24:13 plh: the only one that might not have that is the Document License 14:24:21 wseltzer: we do in the header, just not in the same way 14:24:25 q? 14:24:26 plh: Wanted to talk about pubrules 14:24:28 ack plh 14:24:28 plh, you wanted to talk about pubrules 14:24:42 plh: I don't think we should link to specific version from Process 14:24:46 plh: that would be way too constraining 14:24:57 plh: we make changes to it on monthly basis, we make tweaks 14:24:59 q+ 14:25:05 plh: pubrules only affects what can be published on /TR 14:25:41 q+ to propose "then current" 14:25:42 q? 14:25:44 dsinger: reference is from Member Submission section, Team not required to publish document that doesnt' conform to pubrules, and noted that they can change from time to time 14:25:46 ack flor 14:25:46 florian, you wanted to suggest we add the doc-license document to section 11 14:25:49 plh: can get the dated version if necessary 14:26:05 florian: further, pubrules doesn't apply to Members. It applies to documents that get published. 14:26:16 florian: Wendy pointed out when we did revise the Document License, we did go through ballot process 14:26:31 florian: Unlike CEPC and Patent Policy, Document License isn't rquired to do so 14:26:37 florian: Maybe we just do that 14:26:46 florian: so readers can trust that this will happen 14:27:05 q- 14:27:10 q- 14:27:13 q? 14:27:14 dsinger: For everything we normatively reference, we should either use dated version or establish that it follows this process 14:27:19 ack ws 14:27:19 wseltzer, you wanted to propose "then current" 14:27:24 q+ 14:27:27 dsinger: or that it's not material to conformance of Members 14:27:44 ack plh 14:27:46 q+ 14:28:11 wseltzer: Agree to make it clear that we're referencing latest version approved by Membership and Director 14:28:37 q? 14:28:40 plh: object to adding pubrules to that list 14:29:13 dsinger: let me rephrase, for documents that have impact on Member behavior, we need to make clear by using either dated version or applying approval process 14:29:43 ack jro 14:29:44 jrosewell: Other comment is order of precedence 14:29:54 jrosewell: None of these documents explain how conflict among documents is resolved 14:30:06 jrosewell: without changing Membership Agreement, Process would be the right place to do it 14:30:20 fantasai: let's take that up separately 14:30:39 dsinger: I think I should have a conversation with wseltzer and Florian and draft up some text for jrosewell's review 14:30:45 dsinger: but see the way forward 14:30:48 +1 14:31:04 plh: we will circulate to all the AC reps who responded 14:31:08 dsinger: of course 14:31:17 q? 14:31:18 dsinger: Next question, do we need a precedence statement? 14:31:32 dsinger: Obviously we try to avoid conflicts, so haven't thought about it before, but is a reasonable question to ask 14:31:44 dsinger: I don't see a problem with such a statement 14:31:46 q+ 14:31:53 ack fantasai 14:31:54 ack fant 14:32:08 q- 14:32:13 fantasai: agreed with adding the sentence but Patent policy prevails on the Process 14:32:17 fantasai: I'm fine with adding such a statement. I would give Patent Policy precedence over Process 14:32:23 florian: I was on the queue to say the same 14:32:32 dsinger: interesting, so not following the chain of inclusion 14:32:40 q? 14:32:46 dsinger: anyone with a problem? 14:33:43 q? 14:33:47 [the proposal I heard was laws, member agreement, patent policy, process, linked documents] 14:33:51 dsinger: seems we have agreement, need to draft up the edits now 14:34:00 Topic: Open Pull Requests 14:34:08 plh: we should take the PR from wseltzer 14:34:21 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/569 14:34:41 florian: There's a bit where the Process tries to describe the Patent Policy and does so incorrectly 14:35:01 dsinger: Does anyone object to incorporate this year? 14:35:18 plh: it's new text, and I made the mistake of incorporating into the new templates, and when Wendy reviewed that found the mistake 14:35:34 RESOLVED: incorporate wendy's fix to the PP description for P2021 14:35:50 dsinger: anything else? 14:36:03 florian: Don't want to land anything yet, because need to resolve some things for P2021 first 14:36:15 florian: but would like to draw attention to some open PRs on Director-Free 14:36:19 --> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Director-free+%28all%29%22 Director's free pull requests 14:36:24 florian: They are not the most important parts, they're the easiest parts 14:36:32 florian: want to clear the way for solving the harder problems 14:36:43 florian: hopefully by next time we can start incorporating them into P2022 14:37:00 dsinger: Yes, let's get started on P2022 as soon as we're done with P2021 14:37:03 Topic: P2022 14:37:22 dsinger characterizes some of the open issues 14:37:40 dsinger: We need to work on Director-free this year 14:37:56 dsinger: and establish our processes and practices for working without a Director 14:38:08 dsinger: didn't label as P2022 specifically, but that's the major thing for P2022 14:38:09 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2022%20Proposed%20to%20address 14:38:22 dsinger: editors and I went through the list of issues, and labelled ones we believe are worthy of attention this year 14:38:25 dsinger: 2 questions 14:38:35 dsinger: are there issues we think we shouldn't be trying to land this year? 14:38:48 dsinger: and also, are there issues that should be on this list? 14:38:59 q+ 14:39:05 florian: clarification, doesn't mean we can't work on other issues, but that these are issues we are intending to close this year 14:39:16 ack ws 14:39:23 wseltzer: proposed to address could include addressing as WONTFIX or addressing in other places than Process document 14:39:34 dsinger: we might decide not to do anything on these issues, to close with no action 14:39:43 dsinger: but we think these need conscious attention for the next year 14:39:48 q? 14:39:57 q+ 14:40:05 Topic: Proposed to Close 14:40:23 dsinger: looked at issues that were not likely to make progress, or couldn't work out what change to Process could help 14:40:30 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2022%20Proposed%20to%20close 14:40:33 dsinger: some we re-assigned to AB, because policy questions beyond our remit 14:40:42 dsinger: this is the list we thought we could close without further action 14:40:58 dsinger: one that's had a comment added since we proposed to close 14:41:12 dsinger: if we agree on closing, we'll close after this meeting 14:41:28 q+ 14:41:29 q? 14:41:43 ack jro 14:41:48 jrosewell: In relation to one we're proposing to close 14:41:57 jrosewell: many were raised by me following review last year of Process document 14:42:29 jrosewell: many of these become quite circular, go to a group and they say not our scope 14:42:47 jrosewell: People impacted don't feel that they can't get engaged on these issues 14:43:00 jrosewell: too public to be comfortable, or not have time 14:43:20 jrosewell: if I take one, Dan Appelquist raised issue about user research 14:43:27 jrosewell: I think that would be a big step forward 14:43:37 jrosewell: proposals to do work where there's no justification for the work being put forward 14:43:42 jrosewell: so seems like sensible thing to put into the Process 14:43:49 jrosewell: many issues being closed without a proper debate 14:43:56 jrosewell: maybe we should take these to TPAC sessions 14:44:11 jrosewell: ones I relate to are wrt competition 14:44:18 jrosewell: there was a suggestion of a workshop or something like that 14:44:35 jrosewell: the AB Member-only repo is a bit non-obvious for people, might not be aware 14:44:47 jrosewell: so rather than closing now, maybe taken to forum like that 14:44:53 q+ 14:44:54 q? 14:45:00 jrosewell: rather than going through each one 14:45:00 ack fanta 14:45:26 q? 14:45:29 ack plh 14:45:32 fantasai: Suggest not to mass-close all of the issues 14:45:43 q+ 14:45:46 ack flo 14:45:49 fantasai: but to go through a few each call to go through them individually and agree to close 14:46:08 plh: Agree, don't think we should close these all so quickly in August 14:46:11 florian: Agree 14:46:18 florian: that they deserve individual attention 14:46:34 q? 14:46:34 florian: I agree to close, because part of group that did the triage, but should go through them one by one in this forum 14:46:46 florian: we can use TPAC etc to invite more discussion, but we should address them here 14:46:52 q+ 14:46:54 dsinger: Some are proposed to address elsewhere 14:46:58 ack dsinger 14:47:00 dsinger: some we took to AB 14:47:12 dsinger: but some that need discussion in the broader community 14:47:25 dsinger: we don't have an issues repo for the Membership, just ac-forum 14:47:30 q+ 14:47:45 dsinger: should we have a community discussion repo? 14:47:50 plh: seems like a good idea... 14:47:56 plh: we have one for AB, could have similar one for AC 14:48:02 plh: unless AB says, no please use our repo as well 14:48:19 plh: interesting to see if AB is willing to open its repo to beyond AB participation 14:48:20 q+ to comment on the AB repo's use 14:48:28 wseltzer: point of info, the AB Member-only repo is readable and writeable by the AC 14:48:32 ack plh 14:48:37 dsinger: so we could use AB-memberonly repo 14:48:49 dsinger: but how would we highlight what needs community discussion vs AB work? 14:48:57 dsinger: so those of us on the AB should get this on the AB agenda 14:49:05 dsinger: and I will add a label, Proposed to Transfer 14:49:18 dsinger: and I'll ask if you add that, please comment where you propose to transfer it *to* 14:49:43 dsinger: that would enable James to suggest, e.g. if not discussing in Process repo because not a Process document issue, then move to some other forum so don't lose track 14:49:43 q- 14:49:44 q? 14:49:49 q? 14:49:52 ack fanta 14:50:27 fantasai: Was going to suggest that AB-memberonly is the AC discussion repo 14:50:41 fantasai: AB made that repo intentionally open to AC participation 14:50:44 fantasai: so we should use it 14:51:04 dsinger: concern about another repo for AC, AC is not super active... 14:51:06 q+q+ 14:51:13 q? 14:51:15 q- q+ 14:51:17 q+ 14:51:20 florian: in order to do anything, probably has to come to AB anyway, so it's an appropriate place 14:51:23 ack jro 14:51:30 jrosewell: I would favor not having more GH repos to go to. Would like fewer. 14:51:40 jrosewell: easy to miss notifications, there are so many 14:51:57 jrosewell: more practically, the AB-memberonly repo and some of these discussions are not being picked up on by people who should pick up on 14:52:07 jrosewell: e.g. Jeff's comment about discussing these issues more with adtech 14:52:18 jrosewell: not a single member of adtech community picked up on that 14:52:37 jrosewell: I happened to attend the AC Office Hours discussion which mentioned it 14:52:56 jrosewell: some members tried to look, but got a 404 error 14:53:08 jrosewell: because didn't have their GH linked correctly 14:53:21 jrosewell: people we need aren't engaged on these forums 14:53:27 jrosewell: maybe need discussion at TPAC 14:53:35 dsinger: including in TPAC sessions is indeed appropriate 14:53:42 dsinger: agree, I get snowed by GH notification 14:53:50 dsinger: and don't want us to create a corner where nobody notices 14:54:03 dsinger: I'll raise the idea of Needs AC Input label in AB-memberonly repo 14:54:15 q+ 14:54:20 florian: maybe we can advertise that repo more to chairs and AC 14:54:34 dsinger: maybe advertise periodically somehow... 14:54:41 q? 14:54:44 ack plh 14:54:46 dsinger: so proposed resolution is to address these issues one by one 14:55:01 plh: remember that while AC can read AB repo, they cannot raise issues 14:55:06 plh: it's read-only, not write 14:55:11 florian: are you sure? It's meant to be writeable. 14:55:22 plh: other thing is, we need to make sure AC knows how to access those repositories 14:55:32 plh: every office hours I have to give access to another AC rep 14:55:43 (we agree to check that the AC can raise issues and have the access they need, and get notifications and are kept aware) 14:55:43 q? 14:55:44 plh: it's not complicated, but requires some steps we cannot do for them 14:55:46 ack fant 14:56:30 fantasai: For issues that should get broader discussion, someone should bring to attention of AC by posting to ac-forum 14:57:00 q? 14:57:02 (there are issues in the AB member only repo that have been opened by people who're not on the AB. So I think it's writeable) 14:57:08 ack jro 14:57:09 fantasai: also, could link to Needs AC Input issues from the AC Office Hours announcements 14:57:15 fantasai: because those go out periodically 14:57:32 jrosewell: One more issue, people who work for W3C Members and maybe don't even know they are, 14:57:39 jrosewell: have a session to help people link accounts etc. 14:58:08 q? 14:58:13 fantasai: we should link to instructions for linking GH account alongside the link to the issues which aren't visible unless the account is linked 14:58:23 Topic: Scheduling 14:58:47 dsinger: I have a conflict two weeks from now 14:58:55 plh: Jeff is also unable to make Sept 8th 14:59:07 plh: I would vote to cancel 14:59:11 fantasai: could also reschedule 14:59:18 florian: I would prefer 1 week later 14:59:20 plh: it's our ?? week 14:59:32 dsinger: so we're canceling 14:59:38 s/??/Geek Week/ 14:59:43 we agree to cancel the sept 8th 15:00:05 q? 15:00:19 dsinger: Thanks everyone 15:00:29 dsinger: and thanks jrosewell for your attention, appreciate it 15:00:38 dsinger: even if I don't always agree :) 15:03:54 tantek has joined #w3process 22:23:59 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 22:23:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/25-w3process-irc 22:24:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:24:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/25-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer