Meeting minutes
plh: regrets from Chris, Jeff (who has a conflict)
Closing Issues
Closing issues
plh: I propose to close two issues this week
<plh> https://
plh: one from Janina about citing Horizontal Review in the Process, which we believe is already cited
<plh> https://
plh: other one is 495, which is about "are certain categories of members entitled to AB/TAG"
florian: I'm happy to close both. Happy to explain why if needed.
dsinger: I agree
fantasai: I agree
Pull requests
RESOLUTION: Close 587 and 495
Pull Requests
plh: First question for Wendy, did you have time to look at 572/599?
wseltzer: nope
<plh> https://
plh: Last time we said we'd try to land 586 on that front
… unless ppl have more comments
… but seems some comments?
florian: Let's talk about that
florian: There were 2 rephrasing suggestions from mnot
… I took one of them
… One rephrased text in an effectively informative part, in introductory text
… That text used RFC2119 wording, and didn't need to, so rephrasing made it cleaner
florian: The other one is more interesting, because it overlaps a bit with dsinger's feedback also
… I'm not too hung up on the word "approval" itself, but we need to recognize that this is a "decision" by the Team
… because this is what makes it possible to appeal
… If we use weaker wording, it will not longer be possible to formally object
… By using weaker wording, we'd disempower the AC
… So I think it's important to keep the fact that this is a decision
… if we want to use a different word than "approval"
… that's fine
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest "team verification" or "team decides to verify"
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
dsinger: I think approval implies discretionary aspect, and that's what worries me
… are you disapproving for a reason that has nothing to do with the Process?
… can we say verification or something like that?
dsinger: It's minor, I don't want to block process
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
… but this is a subjective decision, because those requirements are fuzzy
… so inevitably the Team will have to make up its mind and decide
florian: May I suggest that we agree to land, and as a second phase, if there are editorial improvements we can land those?
[discussion of that suggestion]
<wseltzer> +1 to "team verification"
[digging into the PR wording]
[suggestion is to switch "approval" to "verification"]
dsinger: If can switch on the fly, do that, if not we can do editorial fix afterwards
florian: approval appears on lines that weren't changed, so this will take more than 2 min
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
dsinger: and if you fail, I'm fine to merge and then file an issue
florian: I prefer merge now, and do another editorial PR on top
florian: I will attempt to do the change. If it's trivial, I'll do it and merge
… if not trivial, I'll open a new issue
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 586, possibly with "approval" changed to "verification" (else open a separate issue)
plh: that's it for PRs
Maturity level term
Maturity Level to Maturity Stages
<plh> https://
plh: reminder, that we'll approve this change on July 20th if no objections
P2020 Issues List
plh: List is still quite big, 14 issues
plh: and we don't have PRs on most of these
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
plh: Any questions people want to dive into?
dsinger: We could use a plan for what to do with these
florian: Reminder that everything related to the Director is also on this list
plh: I guess we really need to do triage
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
… order will be whichever is easest to solve
… if ppl have criteria other than "whatever Florian thinks is easy", need to speak up
plh: Can have candidates in 2 weeks?
florian: I'll try
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
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about a few
plh: afterwards, we'll need to accelerate if we want to ship a process in 2023
Decision Policies
dsinger: When reviewing charters, most of them have the exact same decision policy text
… would be nice to put in Process
… if it's a good default policy
florian: Problem is not everyone agrees that this is the right default
… if we put it in the Process, then you'd have to justify having a different policy
… and e.g. CSSWG uses a different policy
plh: We tell our Team Contact to start from the Charter Template, and copy-paste from previous charters as needed
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
… is a test suite sufficient?
… are two forks of the same implementation sufficient?
… is an implementation in someone's garage counting?
florian: I think this is an interesting debate, but uncertain we can draw any real conclusion
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
… so keeping it on our priority list and not raising to wider community, we won't make progress
… either tackle it or defer it to later
wseltzer: I like idea of deferring
dsinger: We keep saying we'll get to it, but can't without a wider discussion
plh: On the default policy, I hear you, but it's not a showstopper
… I didn't hear anyone hurt by this
… I did add a link to the charter template
… I understand it makes people read more text
dsinger: It was trying to notice, is this the same boilerplate as usual or has it been tweaked
florian: I would like to notice when the typical thing was tweaked
<weiler> [diff v. template?]
florian: but there's a few different legitimate things
plh: [missed]
weiler: Some people do strange things with the template
plh: Some charters completely deviate, but if you look at the template, there is some customization
dsinger: I'll add comments on why I think this would help, and I appreciate Florian's pushback
<weiler> [and some don't use the template.]
plh: independent implementations is a longer conversation for sure
… can we deviate from saying "it's case by case basis"
plh: Anything else on P2022 issues?
P2022 issues
Scheduling
plh: Governance TF decided to take over our slot
… so we need to pick a new slot
… We can shift to to a different day at the same time
plh: Mondays would take the GovTF's old slot
plh: Thursdays, I looked through September, doesn't conflict with AB because different weeks
<wseltzer> +1 to Thursday
<weiler> [shockingly, 10am US Eastern is open for me each of those days, in general]
plh: didn't include ?? because ???
plh: Would Monday or Thursday work?
<dsinger> -1 to thursday
<wseltzer> -1 to Monday
dsinger: Both we and the AB introduce off-cycle meetings, so we'll end up conflicting
… so best to avoid Thursdays
plh: We could try, and revisit if conflict too often
weiler: GovTF should spin down soon
… right?
dsinger: Not necessarily, I suspect even after Board is seated many topics might get discussed GovTF and then ratified by the Board
plh: Let's do Thursdays until end of September at least, and then revise after that if we feel a need to
dsinger: Timed Text was the other conflict
plh: I think it's an hour before
plh: So next meeting is July 28th
plh: then August 11 and 25
plh: I'll be away that last week of August, but fantasai can chair if she wants
plh: we are anchored on Pacific Time
Independent Implementations
[discussing whether to have conversations at TPAC, or alert the AB, or what]
plh: Maybe schedule a breakout session at TPAC
… I'll make sure we have a session, can't guarantee there won't be a more interesting session at the same time
dsinger: "Interoperable independent implementation", we don't have agreement on any of these three words
Meeting closed.