13:44:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
13:44:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/22-w3process-irc
13:44:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:44:49 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
13:56:54 <dsinger> present+ florian
13:56:58 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
14:03:03 <weiler> present+
14:03:34 <fantasai> present+
14:03:43 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
14:03:46 <fantasai> [agenda bashing]
14:04:10 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:04:59 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #w3process
14:05:09 <jrosewell> present+
14:06:08 <fantasai> Topic: Progress on FO
14:06:31 <fantasai> dsinger: Should get an update from Team on where we are
14:06:42 <fantasai> plh: My understanding was she'd bring the issue to PSIG, and didn't see if anything came out of it
14:07:00 <fantasai> dsinger: I believe PSIG met last week, don't think they had comment on 3.1 and still thinking of 3.2 order of precedence and unlikely to conclude soon
14:07:32 <florian> fantasai: I was at the meeting, and for the question of precedence, they thought it needed a lot more review
14:07:50 <florian> fantasai: (by PSIG, the director, etc), which will take time
14:08:11 <florian> fantasai: so the suggestion is to approve the Process 2021 without the change, and deal with it in the next cycle
14:08:15 <jrosewell> q+
14:08:35 <fantasai> dsinger: Seems that all Process CG just needs to say that we're ready to land text for precedence order once the community has agreed what to do
14:08:56 <fantasai> florian: The comments are against what was in the Process already, not against what's new
14:09:18 <fantasai> florian: Is it OK to address later?
14:09:27 <plh> q+
14:09:34 <plh> ack jr
14:09:56 <plh> q-
14:09:57 <fantasai> jrosewell: [clarifies concerns]
14:10:14 <fantasai> florian: My understanding was that PSIG wasn't concerned about the proposed order, just that it didn't have enough review
14:10:43 <dsinger> q?
14:10:44 <fantasai> dsinger: We are not in the business of resolving FOs in the community itself
14:11:21 <plh> q+
14:11:22 <fantasai> dsinger: But I think on the normative references that have implications on member behavior, we are agreed to pull changes that make them subject to the same review and approval as the Process itself or to reference a dated version
14:11:28 <fantasai> dsinger: I believe that's our consensus in the Process CG?
14:12:09 <fantasai> dsinger: so that changing the dated reference would require balloting as well
14:12:21 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/571
14:12:32 <fantasai> jrosewell: Would like any conflicts to get addressed
14:12:36 <plh> q-
14:12:40 <fantasai> florian: We're trying to address your FO with two PRs
14:12:55 <fantasai> florian: One is about what happens in cases of conflicts, which is awaiting PSIG review and we can't fix yet
14:13:01 <fantasai> florian: But the other part is ^
14:13:07 <fantasai> florian: Which we can address in this group
14:13:25 <fantasai> florian: for this cycle
14:13:34 <fantasai> dsinger: We can and would be willing to do for this year
14:13:59 <fantasai> dsinger: The second question, about order of precedence, we're happy in this group to insert such a statement
14:14:11 <fantasai> dsinger: but need PSIG, Director, Team, etc. to review it
14:14:38 <fantasai> jrosewell: don't understand PSIG's role
14:14:49 <fantasai> florian: PSIG is an informal gathering of lawyers
14:15:00 <fantasai> florian: If they don't approve, then AC will be concerned
14:15:15 <plh> q+
14:15:20 <fantasai> dsinger: I can explain role of PSIG later
14:15:33 <fantasai> jrosewell: I'm concerned if it takes a lot of time for lawyers to resolve
14:15:50 <fantasai> dsinger: If you're aware of any actual conflicts among documents, now would be a good time to bring it up
14:15:57 <dsinger> q?
14:16:00 <fantasai> dsinger: At the moment, we're only aware of this as a hypothetical concerned
14:16:07 <dsinger> ack fanta
14:17:04 <fantasai> fantasai: Issue is not just that PSIG and Director and Team need to sign off, but that this is a significant enough change that requires AC ballot as well
14:17:40 <dsinger> q?
14:17:43 <dsinger> ack plh
14:18:00 <fantasai> plh: what fantasai said, might have to go through AC for that kind of change
14:18:12 <fantasai> plh: but it is also PSIG's role to make sure our legal documents are in order
14:18:52 <fantasai> plh: Proposal is to adopt the Process as-is, and guarantee to fix it for 2022.
14:19:23 <fantasai> dsinger: Note that it is only convention that we change the Process once a year, could do another change as well
14:19:31 <fantasai> plh: to be realistic, I think it'll take PSIG a long time to resolve anyway
14:19:32 <jrosewell> q+
14:19:54 <fantasai> dsinger: So from Process CG's pov we'd like to solve 3.1 and would like to solve 3.2 as soon as we know what can be done
14:19:59 <dsinger> ack jrose
14:20:56 <fantasai> jrosewell: Our initial review was light, but as we participate becoming more aware of problems
14:21:23 <fantasai> plh: Other consideration is that Process 2021 includes a lot of other improvements, and you're proposing to hold those all back for the sake of this issue.
14:21:33 <fantasai> dsinger: Can you take that to an FO resolution meeting?
14:21:41 <fantasai> dsinger: That's outside the scope of this meeting.
14:22:25 <fantasai> florian: There is a fork for P2021, and top of tree is ready to take changes for 2022
14:22:34 <fantasai> florian: Only taking changes approved by Director for P2021
14:22:46 <fantasai> florian: As soon as P2021 takes effect ...
14:22:58 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/571
14:23:07 <fantasai> dsinger: So CG recommends pulling this immediately
14:23:16 <fantasai> florian: My suggestion is to land it now, at least for P2022
14:23:24 <fantasai> florian: and if the Director decides for P2021, we can pull it for P2021
14:23:34 <fantasai> dsinger: But record that ProcessCG recommends landing for P2021
14:23:50 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Land normative referencing fix for P2022
14:24:02 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Recommend landing normative referencing fix for P2021 to Director
14:24:07 <fantasai> Topic: P2022 mechanics
14:24:20 <fantasai> florian: [reviews PRs that are open]
14:24:29 <fantasai> florian: All of these are fairly minor
14:24:41 <fantasai> florian: chaals pointed out that in one of the DF PRs, there's a tiny bit of missed dependency
14:24:45 <fantasai> florian: We change how MOUs are decided
14:25:03 <fantasai> florian: and in another part of document, describe how they're made but didn't update that
14:25:06 <fantasai> florian: that's a minor fix, can fix
14:25:22 <fantasai> dsinger: So you'll be updating CEO rather than Director for MOUs, right?
14:25:28 <fantasai> florian: Yes
14:25:32 <fantasai> florian: And the rest is ready to land
14:25:43 <fantasai> Topics: DF Pull Requests
14:25:44 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/567
14:26:12 <fantasai> florian: With changes introduced in P2020, it's possible to update RECs to adopt new features
14:26:21 <fantasai> florian: We have a term defined in the specs for that kind of RECs
14:26:30 <fantasai> florian: PR is to fix to use vocabulary consistently
14:26:34 <dsinger> q?
14:26:37 <fantasai> wfm
14:26:54 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept PR 567 fixing language about RECs that allow new features
14:26:57 <fantasai> florian: 563
14:27:26 <fantasai> florian: There's this strange notion that because comments by AC reps will be addressed by the Director, if you're in CR phase you *have* to address comments from everybody *except* AC reps
14:27:34 <fantasai> florian: There's no reason to make an exception for comments by AC reps
14:27:38 <dsinger> q?
14:27:42 <fantasai> dsinger: Yes. Much easier to address comments earlier than later in Process
14:27:42 <fantasai> +1
14:28:07 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/563
14:28:14 <fantasai> florian: This next one is about ....
14:28:24 <fantasai> florian: Once you're at CR, there's path to switch to different stages, including WD
14:28:32 <weiler> q+ re: changelog/explanation (meta topic)
14:28:33 <fantasai> florian: but it is not possible to go from REC to WD directly
14:28:50 <fantasai> florian: even though you can do this in two steps, possibly even in the same day
14:28:55 <fantasai> florian: This allows that path
14:29:01 <dsinger> q?
14:29:10 <dsinger> ack weil
14:29:10 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to discuss changelog/explanation (meta topic)
14:29:36 <florian> The PR currently discussed is https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/562/files
14:29:47 <plh> q?
14:29:51 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt the PR to allow this transition
14:30:06 <fantasai> weiler: Btw, how do we generate the list of changes?
14:30:09 <fantasai> florian: Manually
14:30:27 <fantasai> weiler: I was in a meeting where the Board forgot one major change in its list of changes
14:30:35 <fantasai> weiler: Maybe we should incrementally update the list of changes?
14:30:38 <fantasai> florian: We do multiple things
14:30:55 <fantasai> florian: There's a manually-curated changes list. It could be wrong, but I don't think it often is.
14:31:08 <fantasai> florian: We also provide a diff, which is automatically generated, which shows each of the changes
14:31:16 <fantasai> florian: We also link to the GitHub changelogs.
14:31:28 <fantasai> florian: And we *also* create a document listing all the issues that were addressed and how
14:31:40 <fantasai> weiler: ...
14:31:53 <fantasai> dsinger: We have multiple processes to manage this
14:32:11 <fantasai> plh: Let me rephrase Sam's suggestion. Why not each PR updates the Changes list?
14:32:30 <fantasai> florian: I'm not convinced that maintaining 5 changelogs is going to reduce the editors' amount of work
14:32:49 <fantasai> dsinger: Need to check again anyway, in case changes were overridden later in the cycle
14:32:59 <fantasai> florian: or if we accepted a PR that didn't include changelog
14:33:10 <fantasai> dsinger: It's a nice suggestion, but I delegate this kind of management to the editors
14:33:18 <fantasai> dsinger: I require them to produce the changelog, how they do it is up to them
14:33:24 <fantasai> dsinger: but thank you for the suggestion
14:33:29 <fantasai> dsinger: Any other PRs for today?
14:33:42 <fantasai> florian: Next ones are all about the Director
14:33:47 <fantasai> florian: These were made because they are easy
14:34:00 <fantasai> florian: We have harder ones coming later, but it will be easier to deal with complicated things if we do the clean-up things first
14:34:15 <fantasai> florian: SO I would like to request the group reviews all these so that group can land them
14:34:21 <fantasai> plh: Would be good to have Jeff around
14:34:38 <fantasai> florian: Let's make it clear that we will land them next time, unless some problem raised.
14:34:45 <fantasai> dsinger: Yes, I would like to start landing those pull requests
14:35:18 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Plan to pull the Director Free PRs next meeting unless reviewers raise problems with them
14:35:24 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/518
14:35:26 <fantasai> Topic: ...
14:35:44 <florian> Topic: Exclusion opportunity when work leaves a Working Group
14:35:48 <fantasai> dsinger: For work transferred out of a WG, we don't have an exclusion opportunity.
14:35:52 <florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/518
14:35:55 <fantasai> dsinger: Do we want to refer this issue to PSIG?
14:36:19 <fantasai> florian: It is a valid concern, and was brought to PSIG before, but they didn't have appetite to solve it
14:36:20 <dsinger> q?
14:36:25 <fantasai> dsinger: Well, we can put it back on their plate
14:36:35 <fantasai> florian: If groups are diligent about what they do, can be worked around
14:36:40 <dsinger> ack fanta
14:36:43 <fantasai> florian: if we want it to be automatic, we need something in the process
14:36:58 <fantasai> fantasai: I did bring this up to PSIG last meeting
14:37:07 <florian> s/in the process/in the process or the patent policy/
14:37:07 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm going to try to get them to address it
14:37:22 <fantasai> fantasai: I think they're more aware of the problem being a problem now than before, thanks to this issue
14:37:41 <fantasai> plh: So comment in issue that waiting on PSIG
14:37:48 <fantasai> Topic: P2022 Triage
14:37:51 <weiler> q+
14:38:00 <fantasai> dsinger: Florian and I labelled a bunch of issues for P2022
14:38:03 <fantasai> dsinger: Asked group to review
14:38:20 <fantasai> dsinger: Nobody seemed to add anything, should we ...?
14:38:25 <fantasai> dsinger: OK
14:38:35 <fantasai> florian: I don't think we need both P2022 label and P2022 milestone
14:38:43 <fantasai> s/.../move to P2022 milestone/
14:38:55 <fantasai> weiler: I'd like to propose all the Director-Free one
14:38:57 <plh> q+
14:39:04 <plh> ack weiler
14:39:05 <fantasai> dsinger: Oh, those are included by implication. That's our top priority for P2022
14:39:16 <dsinger> ack plh
14:39:30 <fantasai> plh: Do we have issues to track ??'s comments from the AC?
14:39:45 <fantasai> plh: I think we should. There's a question of P2021 vs P2022, can have both labels...
14:39:52 <fantasai> plh: unless already resolved and past the point of opening issues
14:40:05 <fantasai> dsinger: I think we already addressed normatively-reference member behavior, because already resolved that
14:40:19 <fantasai> dsinger: But maybe worth opening an issue on the precedence question, to get community input
14:40:58 <fantasai> florian: Would recommend leaving out the question of whether to address in P2021 or P2022, leave that to the Director
14:41:17 <fantasai> dsinger: We have too many issues in our repo, and got opposition to closing in bulk
14:41:28 <fantasai> dsinger: Open to suggestions of what to do with these one by one
14:41:34 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Close
14:41:45 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/447
14:42:11 <dsinger> q?
14:42:13 <fantasai> dsinger: Propose to close 447 without action, because Process doesn't cover these types of groups
14:42:30 <fantasai> weiler: I disagree with rationale, but agree with the action
14:42:36 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 447 as out of scope
14:42:57 <fantasai> dsinger: 429
14:43:10 <fantasai> dsinger: We introduce a concept for W3C Statements to let any group to raise things to Statement level
14:43:28 <fantasai> dsinger: If we need another mechanism for political issues, I don't think we need to address here
14:43:45 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 429
14:44:01 <fantasai> dsinger: 356, streamlining the Process document
14:44:09 <fantasai> dsinger: We spent a lot of time on it last year
14:44:14 <fantasai> dsinger: And the issue is quite vague
14:44:22 <jrosewell> q+
14:44:29 <fantasai> florian: Agree to close it. We can address specific issues that are opened.
14:44:43 <fantasai> jrosewell: It is very difficult to follow in practice
14:44:46 <fantasai> jrosewell: I know not the intention
14:45:01 <fantasai> jrosewell: I wonder if next year as part of work for substantial changes
14:45:19 <fantasai> jrosewell: perhaps this issue should be addressed then
14:45:24 <fantasai> florian: What do you mean by addressing the issue?
14:45:34 <fantasai> jrosewell: It's not an issue that can be fixed by fixing a paragraph here and there
14:45:38 <fantasai> jrosewell: it's to achieve reduction and simplification
14:45:44 <fantasai> jrosewell: I don't know how that gets actioned, but it's not a single PR
14:45:45 <dsinger> q?
14:45:50 <fantasai> jrosewell: it's a requirement of a new organization
14:46:00 <fantasai> jrosewell: I think it should be recognized as a different type of issue
14:46:05 <fantasai> jrosewell: so of course, close it if you wish
14:46:27 <fantasai> dsinger: Closing not because we disagree, but because we need specific requests for simplification
14:46:40 <fantasai> florian: Also we did do in P2021 a signification simplification of the document itself
14:46:47 <fantasai> florian: not of what it describes, but of the readability
14:46:53 <fantasai> florian: so as much as we can do of one shot
14:46:54 <dsinger> q?
14:47:04 <dsinger> ack jrose
14:47:11 <fantasai> florian: If we want to simplify *W3C*, e.g. by saying "we no longer do X or Y" that's a different issue
14:47:20 <fantasai> jrosewell: If you say there are three things described over 2 pages each
14:47:26 <fantasai> jrosewell: and those can be consolidated to one thing that can be re-used
14:47:37 <fantasai> jrosewell: then that is a change to the Process which results in simplification of the document
14:47:41 <fantasai> jrosewell: That's the kind of thing I'd like to see it
14:47:48 <fantasai> dsinger: I'd love to see it, if anyone has a specific suggestion
14:47:52 <dsinger> ack fanta
14:48:07 <fantasai> fantasai: Wanted to say what Florian did: that we did a major editorial clean up last year
14:48:16 <fantasai> fantasai: and that we need specific suggestions if we want to do anything more
14:48:23 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue about streamlining Process
14:48:33 <jrosewell> q+
14:48:48 <plh> q+
14:49:12 <fantasai> dsinger: James, you raised a lot of issues. Would you be open to doing a triage together with myself, Florian, and Elika?
14:49:20 <fantasai> jrosewell: They fall into multiple categories
14:49:29 <fantasai> jrosewell: ...
14:49:36 <fantasai> jrosewell: Conducted a review of Process last year
14:49:41 <fantasai> jrosewell: tried to keep into discrete areas
14:49:54 <fantasai> jrosewell: very happy to do that
14:50:08 <fantasai> jrosewell: I think many of those issues came up via discussions in AB and Team
14:50:19 <fantasai> jrosewell: was referred to Process CG
14:50:22 <fantasai> jrosewell: so a bit circular
14:50:36 <fantasai> jrosewell: I'm happy to close if not relevant here, but where the issue still remains, would like to try to find a home for it
14:50:50 <fantasai> dsinger: OK, then I'll try to set up a call with the 4 of us
14:51:26 <fantasai> [ discussion about scheduling ]
14:51:32 <fantasai> Topic: Director-Free
14:51:36 <fantasai> dsinger: There are 35 open issues
14:51:40 <fantasai> dsinger: we need to start reducing this
14:51:54 <fantasai> dsinger: I'm not expecting to see action in this meeting, except to highlight that we should turn our attention to these issues
14:52:11 <fantasai> florian: I want to note while we're here, these are not 35 issues about the current text on Director Free
14:52:23 <fantasai> florian: Some are theoretical concerns that are not in the text we are considering
14:52:34 <fantasai> florian: We should not assume that the latest comments in any issue is current
14:52:45 <fantasai> florian: This is why I want to land the easy parts of DF first
14:52:49 <fantasai> florian: Then we can close some of those issues
14:53:01 <fantasai> dsinger: Anything you want to highlight as people to look at soon?
14:53:15 <fantasai> florian: Start with the 4 PRs and go at it bit by bit
14:53:16 <weiler> q+
14:53:37 <jrosewell> q-
14:53:44 <dsinger> ack plh
14:53:54 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/522
14:53:58 <fantasai> plh: Just wanted call attention to 522
14:54:06 <fantasai> plh: We're getting a lot of FOs that are touching on that particular issue
14:54:14 <fantasai> plh: If Process CG could make progress on it would be appreciated
14:54:23 <fantasai> i/plh/Topic: Single Implementations/
14:54:36 <fantasai> florian: Are we getting FOs that ...
14:54:42 <fantasai> plh: We're getting both
14:54:51 <fantasai> plh: We got pushback recently because of implementations
14:55:00 <fantasai> plh: Are they actually practical and useful implementations
14:55:04 <dsinger> q?
14:55:07 <fantasai> s/of impl/multiple impl/
14:55:13 <fantasai> plh: Comment from mchampion is relevant
14:55:24 <fantasai> dsinger: Added P2022 label
14:56:34 <florian> s/Are we getting FOs that …/Are we getting FOs that ask about 2 implementations to pass the CR criteria, or for 2 interested implementors before we can charter something/
14:57:02 <fantasai> florian: It's a political question, not just a Process question
14:57:09 <fantasai> florian: Exiting CR, we might be able to clarify
14:57:21 <fantasai> florian: but whether or not we should charter work based on whether there are implmentation commitments
14:57:26 <fantasai> florian: that's not something we can address here
14:57:36 <fantasai> dsinger: plh, can you take this question to the AC?
14:58:02 <fantasai> plh: I don't think I can commit to that today, especially bringing to the Council
14:58:11 <fantasai> [this will be brought to AB]
14:58:22 <fantasai> dsinger: broader question than Process CG can address
14:58:30 <fantasai> plh: yes W3M is bringing to Council
14:58:35 <fantasai> Topic: Schedluling
14:58:40 <dsinger> ack weil
14:58:43 <fantasai> s/Topic: Schedluling//
14:58:51 <fantasai> weiler: about tackling DF issues
14:58:57 <fantasai> weiler: and tying into formal objections for single implementations
14:59:08 <fantasai> weiler: We have objections on charters, and another issue on ...
14:59:15 <fantasai> weiler: I'm wondering about addressing the question of DF-ness
14:59:25 <fantasai> weiler: some approach for charter approval that involves taking the discussion to the community
14:59:34 <fantasai> weiler: observing the FOs getting to the Director or whatever replaces it
14:59:45 <fantasai> weiler: Give the community an opportunity to find its own consensus
14:59:51 <fantasai> weiler: So a more involved change
15:00:01 <fantasai> weiler: Not have the objection thrown to Director to resolve, but encouraging those disagreements to come out earlier
15:00:08 <fantasai> weiler: early enough for community to talk
15:00:16 <fantasai> weiler: That's what I want the most
15:00:31 <fantasai> florian: I don't know if it's specifically DF or not, because we'd have the same problem with or without Director
15:00:37 <fantasai> florian: But it's an interesting problem to solve
15:00:44 <fantasai> florian: an I have some thoughts on how, but that's for another day
15:01:01 <fantasai> dsinger: Yes, we need to find a way to better involve community
15:01:06 <dsinger> q?
15:01:09 <fantasai> plh: open an issue?
15:01:12 <fantasai> florian: We have several
15:01:24 <fantasai> Topic: Scheduling
15:01:31 <fantasai> dsinger: Potential conflict for 6th
15:01:40 <dsinger> s/6th/13th/
15:01:51 <dsinger> move the 13th to the 6th October?
15:02:00 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Next meeting 6th of October
15:02:23 <fantasai> dsinger: Thanks everyone. Adjourned
15:02:34 <dsinger> adjourned
15:11:57 <florian> rrsagent, please generate the minutes
15:11:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/22-w3process-minutes.html florian
15:13:13 <florian> rrsagent, please make these logs public
16:04:34 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
17:29:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process