14:02:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:02:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-w3process-irc
14:02:08 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
14:02:24 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
14:02:24 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:02:27 <fantasai> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a7496681-9330-4e4f-91e0-449efe8484fd/20220713T070000
14:02:36 <plh> Regrets+ Chris
14:02:50 <fantasai> plh: regrets from Chris, Jeff (who has a conflict)
14:03:20 <weiler> present+
14:03:44 <plh> present+
14:04:03 <plh> agenda?
14:04:21 <plh> agenda+ Closing issues
14:04:26 <plh> agenda+ Pull requests
14:04:27 <fantasai> Topic: Closing Issues
14:04:36 <plh> agenda+ Maturity level term
14:04:49 <plh> agenda+ P2022 issues
14:04:55 <plh> agenda+ Next meeting
14:05:15 <plh> zakim, move to next agendum
14:05:15 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Closing issues -- taken up [from plh]
14:05:24 <fantasai> plh: I propose to close two issues this week
14:05:27 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/587
14:05:41 <fantasai> ... one from Janina about citing Horizontal Review in the Process, which we believe is already cited
14:05:52 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/495
14:06:01 <fantasai> ... other one is 495, which is about "are certain categories of members entitled to AB/TAG"
14:06:12 <fantasai> florian: I'm happy to close both. Happy to explain why if needed.
14:06:20 <fantasai> dsinger: I agree
14:06:22 <fantasai> fantasai: I agree
14:06:25 <wseltzer> present+
14:06:36 <plh> zakim, move to next agendum
14:06:36 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Pull requests -- taken up [from plh]
14:06:37 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 587 and 495
14:06:44 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests
14:06:55 <fantasai> plh: First question for Wendy, did you have time to look at 572/599?
14:06:57 <fantasai> wseltzer: nope
14:07:03 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/586
14:07:08 <fantasai> plh: Last time we said we'd try to land 586 on that front
14:07:16 <fantasai> ... unless ppl have more comments
14:07:29 <fantasai> ... but seems some comments?
14:07:36 <fantasai> florian: Let's talk about that
14:07:44 <fantasai> florian: There were 2 rephrasing suggestions from mnot
14:07:48 <fantasai> ... I took one of them
14:08:06 <fantasai> ... One rephrased text in an effectively informative part, in introductory text
14:08:20 <fantasai> ... That text used RFC2119 wording, and didn't need to, so rephrasing made it cleaner
14:08:32 <fantasai> florian: The other one is more interesting, because it overlaps a bit with dsinger's feedback also
14:08:49 <fantasai> ... I'm not too hung up on the word "approval" itself, but we need to recognize that this is a "decision" by the Team
14:08:55 <fantasai> ... because this is what makes it possible to appeal
14:09:09 <fantasai> ... If we use weaker wording, it will not longer be possible to formally object
14:09:19 <fantasai> ... By using weaker wording, we'd disempower the AC
14:09:26 <dsinger> q+ to suggest "team verification" or "team decides to verify"
14:09:29 <fantasai> ... So I think it's important to keep the fact that this is a decision
14:09:38 <fantasai> ... if we want to use a different word than "approval"
14:09:42 <fantasai> ... that's fine
14:10:18 <plh> ack d
14:10:18 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest "team verification" or "team decides to verify"
14:10:19 <fantasai> florian: When we drafted this wording, we didn't change the term "approval", but we made sure it tied into the rest of the Process properly
14:10:29 <fantasai> dsinger: I think approval implies discretionary aspect, and that's what worries me
14:10:42 <fantasai> ... are you disapproving for a reason that has nothing to do with the Process?
14:10:54 <fantasai> ... can we say verification or something like that?
14:11:08 <fantasai> dsinger: It's minor, I don't want to block process
14:11:28 <fantasai> florian: I think we did take care in various parts, might have missed a feiw, that this bit tied into the parts of Process that had requirements
14:11:37 <fantasai> ... but this is a subjective decision, because those requirements are fuzzy
14:11:47 <fantasai> ... so inevitably the Team will have to make up its mind and decide
14:12:05 <fantasai> florian: May I suggest that we agree to land, and as a second phase, if there are editorial improvements we can land those?
14:12:41 <fantasai> [discussion of that suggestion]
14:12:56 <wseltzer> +1 to "team verification"
14:14:39 <fantasai> [digging into the PR wording]
14:15:35 <fantasai> [suggestion is to switch "approval" to "verification"]
14:15:47 <fantasai> dsinger: If can switch on the fly, do that, if not we can do editorial fix afterwards
14:16:24 <fantasai> florian: approval appears on lines that weren't changed, so this will take more than 2 min
14:16:44 <fantasai> plh: So, either you can make the changes and come back with an edited PR, or you want to have approval to merge assuming you make the changes and don't find a showstopper
14:16:52 <fantasai> dsinger: and if you fail, I'm fine to merge and then file an issue
14:16:59 <fantasai> florian: I prefer merge now, and do another editorial PR on top
14:17:15 <fantasai> florian: I will attempt to do the change. If it's trivial, I'll do it and merge
14:17:20 <fantasai> ... if not trivial, I'll open a new issue
14:17:36 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 586, possibly with "approval" changed to "verification" (else open a separate issue)
14:17:47 <fantasai> plh: that's it for PRs
14:18:38 <plh> zakim, move to next agendum
14:18:38 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Maturity level term -- taken up [from plh]
14:18:54 <fantasai> Topic: Maturity Level to Maturity Stages
14:19:03 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/455
14:19:11 <fantasai> plh: reminder, that we'll approve this change on July 20th if no objections
14:19:27 <plh> zakim, move to next agendum
14:19:27 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, plh
14:19:28 <fantasai> Topic: P2020 Issues List
14:19:38 <plh> zakim, close agendum 3
14:19:38 <Zakim> agendum 3, Maturity level term, closed
14:19:39 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:19:39 <Zakim> 4. P2022 issues [from plh]
14:19:59 <fantasai> plh: List is still quite big, 14 issues
14:20:05 <fantasai> plh: and we don't have PRs on these
14:20:12 <fantasai> s/these/most of these/
14:20:43 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
14:20:44 <fantasai> plh: Some are about the Council, and we said we'd wait for the AB to discuss the Council if they get a chance to do that up to TPAC; after TPAC we'll put it on our agenda
14:20:56 <fantasai> plh: Any questions people want to dive into?
14:21:03 <fantasai> dsinger: We could use a plan for what to do with these
14:21:19 <fantasai> florian: Reminder that everything related to the Director is also on this list
14:21:28 <fantasai> plh: I guess we really need to do triage
14:21:41 <fantasai> florian: My plan is to take, within this list and DF, 1-2 at a time and make PRs to see how we like them
14:21:49 <fantasai> ... order will be whichever is easest to solve
14:22:04 <fantasai> ... if ppl have criteria other than "whatever Florian thinks is easy", need to speak up
14:22:09 <fantasai> plh: Can have candidates in 2 weeks?
14:22:11 <fantasai> florian: I'll try
14:22:24 <dsinger> q+ to talk about a few
14:22:30 <fantasai> plh: It's summer, and a bunch of us are busy with legal entity, so I don't want to push too hard until after TPAC
14:22:37 <plh> ack d
14:22:37 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about a few
14:22:42 <fantasai> ... afterwards, we'll need to accelerate if we want to ship a process in 2023
14:22:55 <fantasai> Topic: Decision Policies
14:23:09 <fantasai> dsinger: When reviewing charters, most of them have the exact same decision policy text
14:23:15 <fantasai> ... would be nice to put in Process
14:23:35 <fantasai> ... if it's a good default policy
14:23:47 <fantasai> florian: Problem is not everyone agrees that this is the right default
14:24:01 <fantasai> ... if we put it in the Process, then you'd have to justify having a different policy
14:24:06 <fantasai> ... and e.g. CSSWG uses a different policy
14:24:23 <fantasai> plh: We tell our Team Contact to start from the Charter Template, and copy-paste from previous charters as needed
14:24:46 <fantasai> dsinger: I think we need to ask for a session at TPAC on "independent" and "interoperability", and what is satisfactory to the community for that
14:24:51 <fantasai> ... is a test suite sufficient?
14:24:58 <fantasai> ... are two forks of the same implementation sufficient?
14:25:07 <fantasai> ... is an implementation in someone's garage counting?
14:25:23 <fantasai> florian: I think this is an interesting debate, but uncertain we can draw any real conclusion
14:25:43 <fantasai> dsinger: I'm not sure we can, but I'm sure the Process CG can't make any progress on these issues without a wider community discussion
14:25:55 <wseltzer> q+
14:26:01 <fantasai> ... so keeping it on our priority list and not raising to wider community, we won't make progress
14:26:15 <fantasai> ... either tackle it or defer it to later
14:26:19 <fantasai> wseltzer: I like idea of deferring
14:26:37 <fantasai> dsinger: We keep saying we'll get to it, but can't without a wider discussion
14:26:44 <fantasai> plh: On the default policy, I hear you, but it's not a showstopper
14:26:45 <gtalbot> gtalbot has joined #w3process
14:26:49 <fantasai> ... I didn't hear anyone hurt by this
14:26:53 <fantasai> ... I did add a link to the charter template
14:27:07 <fantasai> ... I understand it makes people read more text
14:27:22 <fantasai> dsinger: It was trying to notice, is this the same boilerplate as usual or has it been tweaked
14:27:30 <fantasai> florian: I would like to notice when the typical thing was tweaked
14:27:40 <weiler> [diff v. template?]
14:27:42 <fantasai> ... but there's a few different legitimate things
14:27:48 <fantasai> plh: [missed]
14:27:55 <fantasai> weiler: Some people do strange things with the template
14:28:07 <fantasai> plh: Some charters completely deviate, but if you look at the template, there is some customization
14:28:22 <fantasai> dsinger: I'll add comments on why I think this would help, and I appreciate Florian's pushback
14:28:23 <weiler> [and some don't use the template.]
14:28:31 <fantasai> plh: independent implementations is a longer conversation for sure
14:28:38 <fantasai> ... can we deviate from saying "it's case by case basis"
14:28:43 <fantasai> plh: Anything else on P2022 issues?
14:28:48 <plh> zakim, move to next agendum
14:28:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- P2022 issues -- taken up [from plh]
14:28:56 <fantasai> Topic: Scheduling
14:29:13 <fantasai> plh: Governance TF decided to take over our slot
14:29:28 <fantasai> ... so we need to pick a new slot
14:29:47 <fantasai> ... We can shift to to a different day at the same time
14:30:19 <gtalbot> gtalbot has left #w3process
14:30:24 <fantasai> plh: Mondays would take the GovTF's old slot
14:30:34 <fantasai> plh: Thursdays, I looked through September, doesn't conflict with AB because different weeks
14:30:40 <wseltzer> +1 to Thursday
14:30:42 <weiler> [shockingly, 10am US Eastern is open for me each of those days, in general]
14:30:47 <fantasai> plh: didn't include ?? because ???
14:30:53 <fantasai> plh: Would Monday or Thursday work?
14:30:53 <dsinger> -1 to thursday
14:31:08 <wseltzer> -1 to Monday
14:31:18 <fantasai> dsinger: Both we and the AB introduce off-cycle meetings, so we'll end up conflicting
14:31:28 <fantasai> ... so best to avoid Thursdays
14:31:56 <fantasai> plh: We could try, and revisit if conflict too often
14:32:04 <fantasai> weiler: GovTF should spin down soon
14:32:08 <fantasai> ... right?
14:32:33 <fantasai> dsinger: Not necessarily, I suspect even after Board is seated many topics might get discussed GovTF and then ratified by the Board
14:32:51 <fantasai> plh: Let's do Thursdays until end of September at least, and then revise after that if we feel a need to
14:33:06 <fantasai> dsinger: Timed Text was the other conflict
14:33:12 <fantasai> plh: I think it's an hour before
14:33:21 <fantasai> plh: So next meeting is July 26th
14:33:48 <fantasai> s/26/27
14:33:55 <fantasai> s/27/28
14:34:50 <fantasai> plh: then August 11 and 25
14:35:10 <fantasai> plh: I'll be away that last week of August, but fantasai can chair if she wants
14:36:09 <fantasai> plh: we are anchored on Pacific Time
14:38:31 <fantasai> Topic: Independent Implementations
14:38:43 <fantasai> [discussing whether to have conversations at TPAC, or alert the AB, or what]
14:39:15 <fantasai> plh: Maybe schedule a breakout session at TPAC
14:39:30 <fantasai> ... I'll make sure we have a session, can't guarantee there won't be a more interesting session at the same time
14:39:58 <fantasai> dsinger: "Interoperable independent implementation", we don't have agreement on any of these three words
14:40:32 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
14:41:27 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
14:41:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-w3process-minutes.html plh
14:41:38 <plh> rrsagent, make logs public-visible
15:05:58 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
15:19:23 <gtalbot> gtalbot has joined #w3process
15:20:04 <gtalbot> gtalbot has left #w3process
16:01:31 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process