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