07:09:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #process
07:09:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/21-process-irc
07:09:40 <dom> RRSAgent, stay
07:09:44 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
12:11:11 <jeff> jeff has joined #process
13:36:42 <plh> plh has joined #process
13:36:52 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #process
13:37:00 <plh> rrsagent, make logs public-visible
13:37:14 <plh> Meeting: Navigating W3C Process Tracks
13:37:17 <plh> Chair: plh
13:37:37 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2021/Talks/1021-process/ Slides
13:40:05 <plh-web> plh-web has joined #process
13:47:36 <LouisMaher> LouisMaher has joined #process
13:48:00 <LouisMaher> rrsagent, pointer
13:48:00 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2021/10/21-process-irc#T13-48-00
13:54:16 <plh> plh has changed the topic to: https://www.w3.org/2021/Talks/1021-process/
13:54:46 <plh> present+
13:54:46 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
13:54:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/21-process-minutes.html plh
13:57:40 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #process
13:57:43 <ivan> ivan has joined #process
13:58:38 <Bev> Bev has joined #process
13:58:55 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
13:58:58 <rakuco> rakuco has joined #process
13:59:08 <LouisMaher> presnet+
13:59:10 <rakuco> present+
13:59:29 <spectranaut> spectranaut has joined #process
13:59:47 <plh> present+ LouisMaher
13:59:53 <janina> janina has joined #process
14:00:01 <janina> present+
14:00:02 <ivan> present+
14:00:34 <janina> Hi, Janina Sajka, Co-Chair APA
14:00:42 <Bev> Bev Corwin
14:00:45 <cel> cel has joined #process
14:00:48 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #process
14:01:00 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #process
14:01:05 <JohnRiv> JohnRiv has joined #process
14:01:17 <JF> JF has joined #process
14:01:20 <ProgramMax> ProgramMax has joined #process
14:01:35 <ProgramMax> Hello. I am Chris Blume. I am chairing the PNG group.
14:01:44 <JF> Present+
14:01:48 <JohnRiv> present+
14:01:53 <jamesn> present+
14:01:54 <ProgramMax> present+
14:02:19 <mgarrish> present+
14:02:27 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #process
14:02:47 <cel> present+
14:02:51 <fantasai> present+
14:02:52 <MURATA> MURATA has joined #process
14:02:56 <MURATA> present+
14:02:56 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
14:03:41 <spectranaut> present+
14:04:05 <fantasai> Topic: Introduction
14:04:20 <fantasai> plh: We will follow W3C CPEC, so please be nice
14:04:28 <fantasai> ... even if Process is frustrating :)
14:04:38 <fantasai> plh: We will be using IRC q+
14:04:51 <fantasai> ... I will try to also pay attention to Zoom
14:04:57 <chris> chris has joined #process
14:05:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #process
14:05:04 <gkatsev> gkatsev has joined #process
14:05:05 <richard-lea> richard-lea has joined #process
14:05:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
14:05:09 <chris> present+
14:05:12 <fantasai> plh: If you use "q+ to say ..." that will help me manage the queue
14:05:27 <fantasai> plh: This session is for you, so if you have any questions on current or future Process
14:05:34 <fantasai> ... or if you have some issue in your WG
14:05:40 <fantasai> ... please ask about it, this time is for you
14:05:58 <fantasai> plh: I'm Philippe Le Hégaret
14:06:07 <fantasai> ... project management for all the groups in the Consortium
14:06:11 <fantasai> ... to make sure they can work well
14:06:24 <fantasai> ... handle rechartering troubles, help things to work better
14:06:32 <fantasai> Topic: Presentation
14:06:46 <mmocny> mmocny has joined #process
14:06:47 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2021/Talks/1021-process/ Slides
14:06:52 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #process
14:07:13 <fantasai> [recording in progress]
14:07:20 <fantasai> plh: W3C is going to approve a new Process in November
14:07:31 <fantasai> ... which will include 3 tracks: REC, NOTE, and REGISTRY
14:07:44 <fantasai> plh: My goal is to explain these, but if any other questions pls ask
14:07:49 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/ Process 2021
14:07:55 <fantasai> plh: New Process is in place, will be effective November 2nd
14:08:09 <fantasai> ... already approved by the Director, but not announced yet, so not officially approve, but this is what will happen
14:08:12 <fantasai> plh: What's new for groups?
14:08:29 <fantasai> plh: Thanks to Florian Rivoal (editor of Process), he has maintained an excellent changelog in the Process document itself
14:08:35 <fantasai> ... including changes since P2020
14:08:45 <fantasai> plh: Most notable ones listed here
14:08:54 <fantasai> plh: Main highlight is the 3 tracks, meant to resolve a few bugs
14:09:02 <fantasai> plh: Requirements for recordings of meetings, minutes, and resolutions
14:09:11 <fantasai> ... while good practice for years, now required by Process
14:09:17 <fantasai> plh: We have guidelines for tooling
14:09:28 <fantasai> ... we hesitated on requiring everything, so is SHOULD in 2021
14:09:34 <fantasai> ... with the expectation that we really should do these things
14:09:41 <fantasai> ... in future Process they may become REQUIRED
14:09:57 <fantasai> plh: Finally, we've been opening more and more to public these years
14:10:10 <dom> dom has joined #process
14:10:15 <fantasai> ... and the chartering process now has public channels, so those are acknowledge in Process
14:10:18 <fantasai> Subtopic: 3 Tracks
14:10:21 <fantasai> plh: So why 3 tracks?
14:10:25 <fantasai> plh: Over years, many problems noticed
14:10:46 <fantasai> ... from beginning of Process, we always had Notes
14:10:55 <fantasai> ... They were not in the REC track
14:11:04 <fantasai> ... There was REC track, and then separate section for NOTE
14:11:29 <fantasai> ... but over time, WGs didn't want to think of their early drafts as final NOTEs, so they started using WD to draft NOTEs
14:11:44 <fantasai> ... This led to confusion over time, and whether something under Patent Policy or not
14:11:54 <fantasai> ... had to look at SOTD to see if WD intended to become REC or NOTE
14:12:08 <fantasai> plh: so cleaned that up
14:12:20 <fantasai> plh: Also, NOTEs can't be endorsed by W3C as a whole, just a group document
14:12:36 <fantasai> ... similarly TAG Finding are only issued by TAG
14:12:46 <fantasai> ... but some are important documents that should be elevated
14:12:55 <fantasai> plh: Registries have been a problem for years
14:13:06 <fantasai> ... over the years we had registries in wiki pages, NOTEs, inside RECs
14:13:09 <fantasai> ... it was messy
14:13:18 <fantasai> ... How to define a registry was also all over the place
14:13:29 <fantasai> ... And also those documents not in Patent Policy, but good to have REC process...
14:13:42 <fantasai> plh: Lastly, retiring a document there was no special status
14:13:50 <Bev_> Bev_ has joined #process
14:13:59 <fantasai> ... If you were retiring a REC-track document, you'd publish a note, and tell webmaster it was a special retired REC-track document NOTE
14:14:13 <fantasai> plh: So all of these cases, we needed to actually have 3 tracks
14:14:24 <fantasai> plh: First track is REC track.
14:14:39 <fantasai> plh: Not many changes, except that now all WDs will be clearly under Patent Policy
14:14:48 <fantasai> plh: And only WG can publish WD. Not a WG, can't publish WD.
14:15:07 <fantasai> plh: Registry track is similar to REC, but not under Patent Policy, and not under Patent Policy
14:15:11 <fantasai> ... will come back to details on that later
14:15:15 <fantasai> plh: Lastly, NOTE track
14:15:22 <fantasai> ... for anything not under Patent Policy
14:15:33 <fantasai> ... Not just WG and IG (as previously) but also TAG and AB can publish on the NOTE track
14:15:45 <fantasai> ... *and* there's a way to get your NOTE endorsed by W3C as a STATEMENT
14:15:55 <fantasai> ... whereas before the most endorsement possible was from the group itself
14:16:12 <fantasai> plh: There is a way to switch tracks, but it is highly discouraged to switch away from REC
14:16:18 <fantasai> ... need to be very sure you will never want to switch back
14:16:38 <fantasai> ... also if you are in final stage of a track (REC or STATEMENT), not allowed to switch track
14:17:03 <fantasai> plh: Switching tracks is allowed under special circumstances, but discouraged
14:17:12 <fantasai> ... so groups need to make sure they're publishing on the right track
14:17:23 <fantasai> Subtopic: REC Track
14:17:29 <fantasai> plh: Mostly the same as today
14:17:37 <fantasai> plh: New status added for "Discontinued Draft"
14:17:49 <fantasai> ... no more magical NOTEs with special flags
14:18:18 <fantasai> plh: BTW, when you reach Proposed REC, make sure that if you plan to add new features, you annotate that, seen many groups forget
14:18:37 <fantasai> plh: Process 2020 allows revising a REC
14:18:53 <fantasai> ... we've clarified these changes as being called "Amendments", so will use new terminology
14:19:07 <fantasai> plh: We've had so far several groups publish Candidate Amendments
14:19:22 <fantasai> ... but nobody has published a Proposed Amendment yet so AC hasn't seen a revised REC
14:19:32 <fantasai> ... and also we haven't had a high demand for advanced tooling to help this along
14:19:48 <fantasai> ... and it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem, since some groups are hesitant to be guinea pigs
14:19:57 <fantasai> ... but encourage some groups to step forward with Propose Amendment
14:20:29 <fantasai> plh: Keep in mind that editorial changes can be published directly into new REC, only substantive changes (and new features, if your SOTD allows that) need Amendment process
14:20:46 <fantasai> plh: One discussion is whether to go to REC or not
14:20:59 <fantasai> ... now that CR has Patent Policy protections
14:21:08 <fantasai> plh: But in CR can't claim to have no more outstanding major issues
14:21:14 <fantasai> ... may have done so but this fact hasn't been endorsed
14:21:21 <fantasai> plh: You are not endorsed by W3C as a formal standard
14:21:40 <fantasai> ... at most, CR Snapshot is endorsed by group
14:21:49 <fantasai> ... Membership didn't look at it, and Director didn't look at it
14:22:03 <fantasai> plh: Once you're in REC, you can stay in REC forever, keep revisioning via amendment process
14:22:13 <fantasai> plh: Added to Guide benefits of REC
14:22:23 <fantasai> ... though getting to REC has been more costly over time
14:22:34 <fantasai> ... wanted to increase quality of standards, so more requirements on REC
14:22:44 <fantasai> Subtopic: Confusion on REC track
14:23:01 <fantasai> plh: First major issue is what got reviewed during what
14:23:23 <fantasai> ... Groups have been sending EDs for review
14:24:03 <fantasai> ... and this became a problem, in one case because a new section was added not properly reviewed until posted as REC and then review group noticed only later when it was referenced by another spec
14:24:20 <fantasai> ... so we are saying now, don't send ED for wide review. Publish to /TR first and send that copy
14:24:39 <fantasai> plh: Next issue is open needs-resolution issues in HR groups
14:24:48 <fantasai> ... during transition requests
14:24:58 <fantasai> ... Several transitions got blocked because loop was not closed on those issues
14:25:08 <fantasai> plh: As a reminder, there is a review status page
14:25:31 <fantasai> plh: Another issue I've seen is not having the "versioning talk" and not mentioning new features in PR
14:25:43 <fantasai> ... there was a group that forgot to add sentence in SOTD and then was told they were told, it's too late
14:25:54 <fantasai> ... to add new features, have to go back to WD
14:26:04 <fantasai> ... so don't wait for me to tell you
14:26:27 <fantasai> plh: Complaints from webmaster not complying with pubrules
14:26:40 <fantasai> ... but requesting publication
14:26:52 <fantasai> ... lots of work for webmaster
14:27:05 <fantasai> ... Some confusion, e.g. Team COntact told checks were done, but weren't properly done
14:27:11 <fantasai> ... so mistake could be from several sources
14:27:21 <fantasai> ... Some pubrules messages may be confusing
14:27:31 <fantasai> plh: Another confusion is not publishing the document at all
14:27:47 <fantasai> ... document hasn't been updated in over a year, so looking at ED because TR out of date
14:27:56 <fantasai> ... so want to avoid that problem, because creates confusion between the two versions
14:28:05 <fantasai> plh: Another issue is delays in rechartering
14:28:24 <fantasai> ... since summer can add 2-3 months delay to rechartering because of current work done on Director-Free
14:28:32 <fantasai> subtopic: Note Track
14:28:41 <fantasai> plh: Draft Notes, Group Notes, Statements
14:28:50 <fantasai> plh: Draft Notes and Group Notes are pretty obvious
14:29:11 <fantasai> plh: Statements are endorsed by AC
14:29:32 <fantasai> ... if you want your NOTE to be endorsed as as STATEMENT, then you'll have to address all your issues and get a review by AC, just like for REC
14:29:52 <fantasai> plh: Statements are not allowed (SHOULD) to specify implementable tech
14:29:59 <fantasai> ... we allow for exceptional circumstances
14:30:11 <fantasai> plh: Like REC, STATEMENT can also be revised via amendment process
14:30:22 <fantasai> plh: Example of what we expect to become STATEMENT is the TAG Ethical Web Principles
14:30:30 <fantasai> ... AC has been looking at this document and discussing as well
14:30:43 <fantasai> ... so I expect TAG will push this to become a Statement endorsed by W3C as a whole asap
14:30:53 <fantasai> ... so will be interesting to see it go through that stage
14:30:56 <fantasai> Topic: Registry Track
14:31:00 <fantasai> plh: This is a new track
14:31:06 <fantasai> plh: Not under Patent Policy
14:31:13 <fantasai> plh: If you have a registry, welcome to use Registry track
14:31:50 <fantasai> ... can have registry defined within a REC, or can have separate on Registry track
14:32:04 <fantasai> plh: Key feature is you can always add new entries / modify entries
14:32:23 <fantasai> ]... note that we still have a Snapshot status even though not patent policy
14:32:31 <fantasai> ... to trigger review
14:32:43 <fantasai> plh: Registry has some requirements in proces
14:32:56 <fantasai> plh: have to define the registry, what the tables are, how they can get revised
14:33:10 <fantasai> plh: and of course it needs to have tables with the data/entries
14:33:27 <fantasai> plh: They cannot include requirements on implementations
14:33:38 <fantasai> ... ...
14:33:52 <ivan> q+
14:34:11 <ivan> ack fantasai
14:35:10 <fantasai> fantasai: Whether embedding registry definition in a REC or in separate REGISTRY, entries are revised according to the definition, not according to normal Process
14:35:16 <fantasai> Topic: Meeting Requirements
14:35:27 <fantasai> plh: if audio or video recording, we require you to ask for consent
14:35:35 <fantasai> ... and if anyone withholds, cannot record
14:35:42 <fantasai> ... same for live transcripts
14:35:45 <chris> q+ to ask about direct into issues rather than minutes
14:35:56 <fantasai> plh: Of course groups should take and retain minutes for meetings
14:36:06 <fantasai> plh: and required to record any official group decisions
14:36:06 <jamesn> q+ to ask what if someone needs captions but someone else does not allow live transcript?
14:36:14 <fantasai> plh: these are mostly clarifications of existing best practices
14:36:25 <fantasai> Topic: Guidlines for Tooling
14:36:44 <fantasai> plh: We've seen ppl publish materials and promote them, but they are served on non-W3C URLs
14:36:53 <fantasai> ... and these links sometimes break (or will break in the future)
14:36:54 <jamesn> q+ to ask how to close out horizontal review issues in the correct way
14:37:05 <fantasai> ... there's expectation that anyting visible and advertised to the public is at a URL controlled by us
14:37:14 <fantasai> ... That can be very easily done, don't need to publish to /TR necessarily
14:37:29 <fantasai> ... but we need a way to re-establish if service goes down
14:37:38 <fantasai> ... and also therefore we need to make sure W3C has backups
14:37:45 <fantasai> plh: Also public materials need to be i18n and a11y friendly
14:37:58 <fantasai> plh: Minutes and decisions MUST be archived by W3C
14:38:22 <fantasai> plh: Tools must be usable by all participants, and documented so that everyone in your group to find and use your groups
14:38:41 <fantasai> ... doesn't mean every group has to use the same tooling
14:38:49 <fantasai> ... though we encourage it because easier for us to maintain
14:38:58 <fantasai> ... but tooling has to be accessible to all participants, including new participants
14:39:05 <fantasai> Topic: Deployment
14:39:16 <fantasai> plh: Team and fantasai are workign together to deploy on November 2nd
14:39:27 <fantasai> ... we have deployed new version of pubrules compliant with new templates
14:39:33 <fantasai> ... still a few issues to resolve
14:39:45 <fantasai> plh: respec has been updated; bikeshed not yet
14:39:56 <fantasai> plh: and we'll update the guidebook as well
14:40:13 <fantasai> plh: Since Process 2020 there is an expectation that CR publications be refreshed every 2 years
14:40:25 <fantasai> ... not quite 2 years since P2020, but that's coming up
14:40:48 <fantasai> ... so going to be encouraging groups to republish a CR Snapshot for every CR
14:40:56 <fantasai> ... want our CRs to have patent protection
14:41:03 <fantasai> ... so need to get these all refreshed
14:41:21 <fantasai> plh: Another consequence, that every WD not meant to be a REC get moved to Draft NOTE status
14:41:28 <fantasai> ... so over next 12 months will be working to clean that up
14:41:43 <fantasai> plh: Tooling requirements mentioned in the previous slides, we will also might come tell you to do something differently
14:42:00 <fantasai> ... e.g. in discussions with plinss of CSSWG to handle their situation
14:42:17 <fantasai> Topic: Future Process
14:42:25 <fantasai> plh: Process is discussed in W3C Process CG
14:42:35 <fantasai> ... participation is encouraged
14:42:48 <fantasai> plh: major changes slated for P2022 are director-free processes
14:43:15 <fantasai> ...Handling FOs might be slower than usual, as we are test-running / debugging the Council process
14:43:33 <fantasai> ... Been apologizing groups for effects on them, but it is necessary step to get Director-free branch right
14:43:41 <fantasai> ... so that's the reason why recharter might take more time
14:43:45 <fantasai> Topic: Questions
14:43:53 <fantasai> plh: Don't forget w3.org/PM
14:43:57 <janina> q+
14:44:10 <fantasai> plh: If you are a WG chair but didn't get message about chair training, please ask me about it
14:44:25 <fantasai> plh: I want to make sure you understand your role in all this, and answer any questions or concerns you have
14:44:41 <fantasai> plh: For queueing today, please q+ on IRC. You can also do so on Zoom as well.
14:44:47 <fantasai> [end of recording]
14:45:00 <dsinger> q+ to acknowledge the other editor
14:45:10 <dsinger> vq?
14:45:15 <plh> ack ivan
14:45:52 <fantasai> ivan: You were saying looking for guinea pigs for proposed amendments, Verifiable Credentials is working on something there and paying price of missing tooling
14:46:03 <fantasai> ivan: Similar vein, we'll probably also provide in EPUB WG a guinea pig for Statement
14:46:15 <fantasai> ivan: not clear yet, but there's a document that might end up on that track
14:46:30 <fantasai> ivan: Question I have, if a document starts on REC track then switching to NOTE is a big No-no
14:46:33 <fantasai> plh: Highly discouraged
14:46:41 <fantasai> ivan: One thing that happens often, and did happen a few times
14:46:56 <fantasai> ivan: is realizing one section of a large document is not really REC-track material
14:47:01 <fantasai> ivan: so we move to NOTE
14:47:05 <fantasai> ivan: I presume this is still OK
14:47:17 <fantasai> plh: Question we will be asking is, is there any chance this will come back to REC track
14:47:25 <fantasai> ... if so we will say, please leave on REC track
14:47:48 <fantasai> ivan: That's a strange problem, because we feel that it might not get implemented
14:48:08 <fantasai> plh: Publish that material can be published into FPWD; even if no intention to move forward with it yet
14:48:33 <fantasai> ... will have to think about each case, but want to avoid moving material off REC track if it will come back
14:49:10 <fantasai> plh: That reminds me maybe I should re-review the publication request I just got from you :)
14:49:13 <plh> ack chris
14:49:13 <Zakim> chris, you wanted to ask about direct into issues rather than minutes
14:49:21 <fantasai> chris: My question is about the requirement for minuting
14:49:38 <fantasai> ... in Fonts WG traditional minutes, and sometimes copy resolutions into GH
14:49:57 <fantasai> ... CSSWG has traditional minutes, but have github-bot copy relevant section of issue to GH
14:50:06 <fantasai> ... lastly Audio WG where no traditional minutes are taken at all
14:50:34 <fantasai> ... instead chair says "let's look at issue 1234" and then after discussion the resolution is recorded into the issue by the chair
14:50:44 <fantasai> plh: New Process says that you SHOULD have minutes, not MUST have minutes
14:50:54 <fantasai> ... Need to be able to explain rationale for the decisions is documented
14:51:04 <fantasai> ... if you don't take minutes today, you MUST record the decision
14:51:24 <plh> q?
14:51:26 <fantasai> ... and need to make sure the rationale for the decision is properly explained and also recorded
14:51:27 <plh> ack jamesn
14:51:27 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask what if someone needs captions but someone else does not allow live transcript? and to ask how to close out horizontal review issues in the correct way
14:51:34 <fantasai> plh: Process is more clear and flexible on this
14:51:38 <dsinger> vq?
14:51:38 <fantasai> ... than my presentation
14:52:09 <fantasai> jamesn: My question is, what if someone needs live captions but someone else says no recording/captioning
14:52:17 <fantasai> dsinger: It's about recording
14:52:36 <fantasai> plh: You can't retain the live transcripts after the meeting
14:52:40 <fantasai> jamesn: not clear from slides
14:52:55 <fantasai> ACTION plh clarify slides about live captions allowed, just can't keep transcript if objected to
14:53:07 <fantasai> jamesn: Suppose an issue is closed but still on tracker, what's the process for closing?
14:53:15 <fantasai> plh: Not meant to disappear for tracker
14:53:22 <fantasai> ... PR is clarifying what you're meant to do
14:53:36 <fantasai> ... which is ping HRG about issues closed on your side but not in HRG tracker
14:53:37 <chris> The horizontal reviewing group will remove the resolution-required label once they agree
14:53:46 <fantasai> plh: we had a few instances with confusion here
14:54:06 <fantasai> plh: If you don't get a response in a reasonable amount of time, can still send a transition request
14:54:16 <fantasai> ... HRGs don't have veto power
14:54:30 <fantasai> jamesn: So if close HRG with amicable resolution
14:54:41 <fantasai> ... but they didn't close their tracker issue?
14:54:47 <fantasai> plh: This is how they keep track of their reviews
14:55:00 <fantasai> ... when WG closes issues on their side, doesn't necessarily get closed on HRG side
14:55:00 <chris> You can close your issue, but if you try to remove the label it will just come back automatically
14:55:20 <fantasai> ... so we ask you to reach out to HRG to close their issue; or if they don't want to, to indicate in your issue why they don't want to close the issue
14:55:36 <fantasai> ... sometimes confusion between what chair comments and rest of group
14:55:50 <fantasai> plh: but either way, you can still send in transition request
14:56:01 <fantasai> plh: remember they have a lot of drafts to review
14:56:05 <chris> You can leave a comment in *their* issue reminding them
14:56:14 <fantasai> ... system will tell them they should consider closing their issue
14:56:28 <fantasai> ... and as chris mentioned on IRC, you can also comment on their issue and ask to close
14:56:42 <fantasai> plh: but there were instances where the two issue weren't sync, and it led to problems
14:56:46 <plh> q?
14:56:48 <plh> ack janina
14:56:56 <fantasai> janina: 3 questions
14:57:03 <fantasai> janina: New NOTE process which sounds very interesting to me
14:57:13 <fantasai> ... are we expecting all new NOTEs will start from Draft NOTE status?
14:57:22 <fantasai> plh: No, you are allowed to publish directly to NOTE
14:57:35 <fantasai> janina: That doesn't allow for HR of NOTEs
14:57:41 <fantasai> plh: We don't require horizontal review of NOTEs
14:57:47 <fantasai> dsinger: NOTEs are WG documents
14:57:50 <fantasai> dsinger: not W3C documents
14:58:03 <fantasai> dsinger: if you want to make W3C document, you have to get HR and AC approval
14:58:10 <fantasai> janina: OK, better than what we have now, so can live with it
14:58:21 <fantasai> janina: Next question, about groups wanting to normatively reference metadata schemas
14:58:41 <fantasai> ... Can we make RFC 2119 MUST to ???
14:58:57 <fantasai> plh: registry is just another tool, not required to be used
14:59:04 <fantasai> ... can still use IANA registry or whatever
14:59:22 <fantasai> ... if you have schema.org reference, Director will check your references and is fine if it's appropriate use of reference
14:59:33 <fantasai> janina: We've seen a few CGs rely on publishing
14:59:42 <fantasai> ... I've seen words like "standard" and "publication" in CGs
14:59:53 <fantasai> ... seems those groups are missing process, and this is a concern
15:00:06 <fantasai> plh: The Process still doesn't govern CGs, so that's why I didn't mention anything on that
15:00:16 <fantasai> ... but we have another project called ClearSpec
15:00:33 <fantasai> ... we're working on retemplating the CG reports to clarify what is/is not endorsed by W3C and is /is not on standards track
15:00:42 <fantasai> ... people can always misunderstand, whatever in SOTD
15:00:50 <fantasai> ... some people will assume W3C logo means W3C endorsement
15:01:00 <fantasai> ... even on REC track, early drafts don't have such endorsement
15:01:14 <fantasai> ... but styling of documents not in WGs, we're changing styling to avoid confusion as much as possible
15:01:16 <plh> q?
15:01:22 <plh> zaki, close the queue
15:01:26 <plh> zakim, close the queue
15:01:26 <Zakim> ok, plh, the speaker queue is closed
15:01:30 <fantasai> dsinger: Fiction of CGs is that they're public things not endorsed or ... of W3C
15:01:46 <plh> ack dsinger
15:01:46 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to acknowledge the other editor
15:01:47 <fantasai> ... but AB has noticed that a number of CGs are in shadowy area where connected to W3C work but not clearly under Process
15:01:58 <fantasai> ... if any thoughts or advice, please talk to AB
15:02:19 <fantasai> dsinger: Just wanted to acknowledge editors fantasai and Florian
15:02:27 <chris> editors++
15:02:35 <fantasai> dsinger: Also to note there was a major editorial revision of the document, so don't try to diff it
15:02:53 <fantasai> plh: If any questions, never hesitate to contact me
15:03:06 <fantasai> plh: my goal is that you can do the work you want to achieve within the Process
15:03:59 <fantasai> fantasai: If you want diffs, look at changelong. Explains all changes and also has diffs prior to editorial reorg so you can see what's changed
15:04:16 <cel> thanks!
15:04:17 <fantasai> dsinger: If you care about Process, please come to CG! Not enough of us, so don't get wide enough range of opinions :)
15:04:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/21-process-minutes.html fantasai
15:05:33 <ProgramMax> ProgramMax has left #process
15:06:47 <ivan> ivan has left #process
15:12:52 <plh> slides fixed.
15:16:16 <cel> cel has left #process
15:40:06 <janina> janina has left #process
15:44:38 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minu', fantasai.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:44:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/21-process-minutes.html fantasai
15:59:59 <dom> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items