Meeting minutes
Chair David
<dsinger> plh: Update on the FO. W3M decided to approve the process last week. Understood from the objectors that the objections will be dealt with in teh next version. But we won't hold.
<dsinger> plh; we will add the two clarifications on the documents that are subject to AC review
<dsinger> plh: Formal release will be after TPAC on Nov 2nd
<dsinger> Florian: what document would you like me to make?
<dsinger> plh: Please make a final document, with the Nov date and the status of the current official process
<jrosewell> Thank you.
Pull Requests
<dsinger> looking at 557 https://
#557 allows the CEO/team to handle Member submissions
florian: separate questions on what to do to appeal, we'll deal with that later
Resolution: Merge #557
https://
<dsinger> Next #558 Disciplnary auth https://
florian: moving disciplinary authority from the Director to the CEO
Resolution: Merge #558
https://
<dsinger> Next #559 a grab-bag https://
Florian: moving participation from the Director to the CEO
David: Member, Group chairs, Participants
… we never used that participants in the past
David: Invited Experts
… including disagreement between Chairs and Team Contacts
Chris: bit concerned about appointing and reappointing Chairs
… it's a hot topic lately
… Chair appointment have been contentious
… moving that to the team may create frustrations
Florian: initial decision and recourse
… team is the right one to make the two parts to this: initial decision
… but if you disagree, we have an open issue about this. lack of clarity if you can formally object or not
… you can reach out to the team before making a formal objection
<dsinger> Indeed we have https://
chris: concerns that it doesn't put pressure on the team to negotiate that ahead of time
… I don't have a clear answer, just concerned
david: we have an open issue indeed
<cwilso> https://
david: it's also about documenting current practices
dsinger: ...
plh: Believe we should have a process that's easy in the straightforward cases
plh: and have recourse if things go wrong
plh: I like Florian's proposal
plh: Right now if chair wants to step down, we refuse until they give us an alternative person, e.g
plh: We do rely more and more on the participants of the WG to decide the group
plh: so it's done very cooperatively
plh: I'm surprised to hear we don't have a way to formally object
plh: for initial groups, we don't always have names at the start
plh: but we try to put names of chairs in the charter
plh: I don't remember AC review opposing chairs
plh: but there have indeed been tricky cases in the past
jeff: On this particular PR I agree with Florian and plh
jeff: on this particular pull request, I concur
jeff: But cwilso is raising a larger issue I'm concerned about
… chris is raising a larger issue however
jeff: There are a lot of things the Team's been doing under the Director's delegation for a long time
jeff: I'm not sure we've systematically thought through how we want all those to land
jeff: I'm not sure going through issue by issue isthe right approach
jeff: Example that sits in my mind is typically if a WG wants to take a document to PR, that's a Director decision
jeff: Ralph makes that on behalf of the Director
jeff: He checks a bunch of things about the document to make sure it's done properly
jeff: That transition is done on behalf of the Director by the Team
jeff: If not Director, who makes that decision?
jeff: Doubt Council will do it
jeff: If no check, then have to just trust the WG
jeff: Need to think through the whole flow ...
jeff: I know today was supposed to do the "easy" ones, but we need a systematic approach
florian: The one Jeff raised is on my radar
florian: I have a different answer than here
florian: I do think we should go piece by piece, because if we wait until we agree on everything to do anything, we are not going to make progress
florian: Right now, aligning the Process with what we do today
florian: and where we are uneasy about it, raise issues and work on them
florian: For the other issue, I am preparing a PR for that also
florian: But cwilso, would you be comfortable landing this now and addressing conflicts later?
cwilso: Not going to block
cwilso: Just want to bring up that this needs to be addressed
cwilso: It's increasingly a problem
cwilso: Lots of concerns wrt bias in chairing
cwilso: In the past, in retrospect, are we going to formally object to the appointment of a chair?
cwilso: that's an elephant gun solution
cwilso: but also Team swapping chairs, with first notice being opportunity to object, is not great
cwilso: Should make it possible to fix before getting to FO
cwilso: So no objection to merging, but do want to fix the larger problem
weiler: I'm very sympathetic to the issue
weiler: of "wait, first we heard about this, it's a done deal"
weiler: I'm trying to work out though from a management standpoint
weiler: if a chair appointment gets objected to
weiler: if plh is in situation of "need to appoint a chair, because down to zero chairs"
weiler: a slow-track process is going to be very painful
weiler: can we meet your concern without stop-energy black hole
florian: Briefly, my proposal is not to introduce the ability to FO, but understand that the Process currently allow this
plh: Reminds me, how do we make changes to charters after AC review and before approval
plh: We make changes, but there was complaints that no review of those changes
plh: We didn't start by changing Process, but updating guidebook for the Team
plh: requiring Team to circulate proposal to those who responded
plh: We're not saying Team cannot make initial decision, but document how it's done
plh: How to balance that with not having a chair for a long time...
plh: But the guidebook can be more precise
<jrosewell> IMO in a consensus driven organization then appointing chairs that are capable of gaining consensus seems pretty fundamental and therefore the working group's purpose would be in question if chairs can't be agreed.
dsinger: My conclusion is we should pull this PR to document reality
dsinger: comment in 281 or file a new issue if needed
dsinger: I think an FO is in-your-face and rather too public about questions about a perosn
dsinger: I think we might need a way for e.g. AB to mediate in camera
dsinger: In most cases, Team only has a candidate
dsinger: if more candidates, maybe should hold votes
dsinger: I'm unsure about Team handling cases where there are conflicting visions for chairing the WG
cwilso: I think 281 is about objecting to appointments
cwilso: Should I open a new WG about figuring out better process?
cwilso: Maybe we should change the title of the issue?
dsinger: Yes, let's do that, keeps all the discussion in one place
"With the input of the AB, the Team appoints the Chair"
fantasai: Maybe we should say the same for this appointment?
fantasai: "With the input of the WG members"
weiler: Want to urge caution about soliciting input
weiler: in a public way
weiler: I've done this for WG and it's a good change
weiler: but requiring it could have some bad impacts
weiler: and ability to select the best people
dsinger: I will note that in ???, an indicative vote is held
dsinger: and INCITS?
dsinger: And in general there's widespread approval and the executive board signs off
Resolution: Land PR #559, continue discussing chair appointments in 281
<cwilso> Incidentally, I put a comment in 281 with a suggested title change - I don't have privileges to change the title myself.
florian: Last topic is MOUs
florian: Currently the person in charge of negotiating and signing is the Director
https://
florian: This PR changes it to the CEO
florian: Implicitly under the supervision of the Board of Directors once we have one
https://
jeff: This PR is fine but
jeff: We have in our history one MOU which assigns directly specific responsibilities to the Director
jeff: which is the WHATWG-W3C MOU
jeff: I doubt that this PR is trying to assign those responsibilities in that MOU to the CEO
jeff: and would be a mistake to do so
jeff: but if we're moving forward with this PR
jeff: need to document somewhere that we have this other open issue
jeff: Maybe say in the PR, that this is strictly about approving new MOUs, and not assigning Director role in any existing MOU
dsinger: Can you file an issue that we have an existing MOU that mentions the Director?
dsinger: I think it's more of an AB issue than Process CG
jeff: Unsure how tracking
jeff: But Florian and I identified all the Director's responsibilities so we can address them, and this was included
jeff: Just as long as we're talking about MOUs, just wanted to raise it
dsinger: I put a comment in the PR that tis is only about negotiation, not about contents of MOU
dsinger: but good point, we should follow up on that MOU
plh: it does mean that we're going to have to review all our official documents
plh: and map from W3C Director to new process
<jeff>
plh: You're right in the case of the WHATWG case we will need to replace Director with the Council
plh: but each situation is different, so we will have to evaluate one by one
jeff: I'll open in AB-memberonly?
cwilso: Yes, we need to track all of these and figure out how to edit those agreements
florian: Just want to agree that this PR does not assign role of Director in MOU. It will be the CEO's responsibility to negotiate the update.
florian: and CEO should probably do that with advice of AB and the party we're negotiating with
Resolution: Merge PR #556
dsinger: Please comment on issues and help us make progress
florian: Once we land these, btw, some of the issues will be closed
florian: I have another batch of PRs in preparation, but they are more tangled and more complicated than these
dsinger: Yes, and we'll have to evaluate the overall balance as well
dsinger: [discussion of issue management]
dsinger: I wonder if we can close without action "Clearer wording for transition to obsolete status"
dsinger: It's been open since 2020, and we've asked repeatedly for text and haven't got it
dsinger: any objection to simply closing this issue?
florian: We said we'd soon close it in July 2019 ...
dsinger: It's editorial
florian: and if someone comes up with something they can always open a PR
Resolution: Close that issue (whatever it was)
dsinger: Next issue is horizontal review
dsinger: we have this documented now in /Guide
dsinger: shall we close?
jeff: I agree that we've effectively made it mandatory
jeff: wide review is mandatory, and HR is part of that
jeff: that works today in P2021
jeff: but mindful of what I said earlier: who is doing the checking in Director-free?
jeff: Today, Ralph acting as Director, interrogates the Team or Chair or whoever to make sure this was done
jeff: Who's doing this stuff? Unless someone's checking, mandate doesn't mean anything
<dsinger> I think that the team is the right place to be checking that mandates are obeyed
jeff: Closing this is fine, but I'm concerned closing all the reminders of things that we need to address
dsinger: [comment above]
dsinger: If there something we didn't address, please open a new issue.
weiler: If we're talking about #394?
dsinger: yes
weiler: fine with closing
florian: also fine with closing
florian: also agree that Team being in the business of checking is right
florian: especially since these are initiated not by the Team, for them to check is fine
florian: This is a part that I'm not that worried about the Director stepping away
florian: ...
Resolution: Close #394
Scheduling
dsinger: I'll be away on Oct 27th, prefer not to chair
jeff: It's also during TPAC
dsinger: So for both those reasons, I think we should cancel
Resolution: Cancel Oct 27th meeting
dsinger: Meeting after that would be the 10th of November
dsinger: Any other business?
<jrosewell> Should we cancel
jrosewell: next meeting after that is the 24th of November, should we cancel that because right before Thanksgiving?
dsinger: yes
Meeting closed.