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