14:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-irc
14:00:41 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Jul/0005.html
14:01:45 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:02:14 <wseltzer> zakim, start meeting
14:02:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:16 <plh> present+
14:02:17 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:02:19 <wseltzer> present+
14:02:27 <florian> present+
14:02:32 <cwilso> present+
14:02:45 <plh> scribe+
14:02:56 <TallTed> present+
14:03:19 <fantasai> Topic: Appeal process for proposals #478
14:03:26 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/478
14:03:26 <plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/478
14:03:42 <plh> fantasai: can't think anything we can do about this issue
14:03:50 <plh> ... anyone object to closing?
14:03:53 <cwilso> +1 support closing
14:04:02 <plh> Resolved: #478 is closed
14:04:10 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests
14:04:18 <fantasai> Subtopic: Maturity Levels is a weird term
14:04:26 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/612
14:04:39 <plh> fantasai: s/Maturity level/Maturity stage"
14:04:51 <wseltzer> no objection
14:05:28 <plh> florian: old and new fragids will work
14:05:34 <plh> Resolved: Merge #12
14:05:41 <fantasai> Subtopic: approval vs verification
14:05:43 <plh> s/#12/#612/
14:05:48 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/610
14:06:13 <plh> fantasai: editorial tweaks around Team involvement
14:06:41 <plh> florian: started with naive replacement. needed to make more tweaks. result is the pull request
14:07:02 <plh> Resolved: merge #586
14:07:19 <tink> tink has joined #w3process
14:07:32 <fantasai> subtopic: Director-free TAG
14:07:41 <tink> present+ Léonie (tink)
14:07:52 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/611
14:08:13 <plh> fantasai: this is based on discussion within the AB and the TAG
14:08:21 <plh> florian: couple of minor words smithing
14:08:42 <plh> ... so far, the Director chooses the chair of the TAG. in future, the TAG will
14:08:52 <plh> ... Director appoints 3 members of the TAG
14:09:01 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Next Process CG: July 28 Agenda -- https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e62960e7-ab1e-4523-bb33-c8513500b7f9/20220728T070000
14:09:05 <plh> ... replacement is to have an appointment committee
14:09:22 <plh> ... committee would start after the election result
14:09:35 <plh> ... committee is a subset of the TAG
14:09:43 <plh> ... (not for reelection)
14:09:47 <plh> ... subset of WG chairs
14:09:56 <plh> ... with some filtering mechanisms to take active ones
14:10:01 <plh> ... with a team contact
14:10:08 <plh> ... see details in pull request
14:10:21 <plh> ... we can iterate some more
14:10:37 <plh> ... there are remaining concerns about this being complicated
14:10:51 <plh> ... just got feedback from the TAG that it might be too complicated
14:10:58 <plh> ... but it wasn't the direction of the AB
14:11:06 <plh> ... not proposed for merger today
14:11:21 <plh> +
14:11:22 <plh> q+
14:11:30 <plh> q?
14:11:32 <cwilso> q+ to suggest we should have TAG+AB members meet (Dan suggested at TPAC) to discuss
14:11:35 <wseltzer> q-
14:11:39 <plh> q-
14:11:49 <dsinger> q+ to talk about rationale
14:12:02 <plh> ack cw
14:12:02 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest we should have TAG+AB members meet (Dan suggested at TPAC) to discuss
14:12:19 <plh> cwilso: Dan commented in the pull request yesterday to meet at TPAC to discuss
14:12:30 <plh> ... need to get the TAG and the AB together for a direction
14:12:40 <plh> ... concerned about complexity but that doesn't make it wrong
14:12:45 <florian> q+
14:12:56 <plh> ... I do like that the TAG is looking for optimization
14:13:05 <plh> ack ds
14:13:05 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about rationale
14:13:12 <plh> dsinger: +1 on being complex
14:14:52 <plh> ack florian
14:15:03 <plh> florian: would be good to speak with the TAG again
14:15:18 <plh> ... but we had at least one AB meeting in Quebec and one in Fukuoka
14:15:41 <plh> ... present text includes TAG viewpoint as much as AB viewpoint
14:16:07 <plh> fantasai: let's take the text for review. schedule a session at TPAC
14:16:09 <florian> q+
14:16:27 <plh> ... it seems that we might also want to have a discussion with the TAG minus the appointed members
14:16:49 <plh> florian: while this is a fair amount of text, I don't think it's that complex
14:17:27 <plh> ... something that appears that isn't too complex like dismall process have caused a lot of details :(
14:17:43 <plh> ... here, it needs to be in sync with the election but before the start of the term
14:17:52 <plh> ... delays will make things longer
14:17:56 <plh> q+
14:18:25 <wseltzer> plh: time is elastic
14:18:45 <wseltzer> ... in the council experiments, things have taken much longer than anticipated
14:19:03 <wseltzer> ... I'd encourage TAG and AB to meet at TPAC; they don't need Process CG
14:19:43 <wseltzer> ... Also, we should be aware we already send a deluge of emails to the AC already;
14:19:55 <wseltzer> fantasai: we're selecting from among chairs, not ACV
14:20:01 <wseltzer> s/ACV/AC/
14:20:46 <dsinger> q+ to suggest we bounce this to the AB+TAG
14:21:04 <plh> florian: action is for everyone to review the text and the chairs oif the AB and TAG to convene a conversation
14:21:15 <fantasai> ACTION: Everyone to review text of PR #611
14:21:29 <fantasai> ACTION: AB + TAG organize a joint session at TPAC, possibly without appointed members
14:21:33 <plh> ack fantasai
14:22:00 <plh> fantasai: one thing to tweak might be to have the appointed members to stand for election at their next turn
14:22:25 <plh> ... appointment committee might still appoint them if they win but that will look weird
14:22:28 <dsinger> q+
14:22:33 <plh> ack ds
14:22:33 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we bounce this to the AB+TAG and to
14:22:49 <plh> dsinger: let's open an issue on limits of consecutive terms
14:24:14 <plh> q+
14:24:24 <fantasai> [temporarily suspended scribing]
14:25:54 <plh> ack plh
14:26:26 <fantasai> fantasai: so let's leave this to AB + TAG chairs to organize
14:26:39 <fantasai> fantasai: and Process CG should review wording to make sure that if we go with this direction, we are happy with the wording
14:26:46 <fantasai> Topic: Up for Discussion
14:27:10 <fantasai> Subtopic: Making thresholds relative to actively-participating AC
14:27:12 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/604
14:27:29 <plh> florian: one might need to wait until the LE is operating
14:27:40 <plh> ... since criteria may vary
14:27:55 <plh> ... (payed dues, email bouncing, etc.)
14:28:26 <plh> ... calculating the % based on active members
14:28:41 <plh> ... but number of definitions for "active members"
14:29:08 <plh> fantasai: let's take a strawpoll on whether we should do something about it
14:29:23 <wseltzer> q+
14:29:30 <plh> fantasai: should we modify the count on the AC for the percentage to be relative to a subset of members
14:29:57 <plh> wseltzer: I don't feel strongly but admin challenges in tracking activity may be greater than the benefit
14:30:03 <dsinger> q+ to ask the systeam for comment
14:30:06 <plh> fantasai: it will make a difference for appeals
14:30:11 <florian> q+
14:30:13 <plh> ack ws
14:30:28 <tink> q+
14:30:31 <plh> wseltzer: I recognize the argument but worried about cost
14:30:38 <wseltzer> s/cost/overhead/
14:30:45 <plh> dsinger: we should ask the system about what is easy to implement
14:30:45 <tink> ack me
14:30:51 <plh> ... like last voted date
14:30:59 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask the systeam for comment
14:31:00 <plh> ... if they can't, we should think again
14:31:06 <plh> q+
14:31:10 <plh> ack fl
14:31:32 <tink> q+
14:31:34 <plh> florian: +1 to ask systeam. we have email archive.
14:31:53 <plh> ... sent email, participating on votes
14:32:00 <plh> ... has an AC rep
14:32:14 <fantasai> ... systeam already knows which ACs are unassigned or have bouncing emails, so I think we should at least do this, and ask systeam whatever else we can do
14:32:24 <fantasai> scribe+
14:32:33 <fantasai> plh: I'm happy to ask the systeam
14:32:36 <florian> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList already tracks who lacks AC reps and who's bouncing
14:32:38 <fantasai> ... but like to know what to ask exactly
14:32:46 <fantasai> ... they are tracking multiple factors
14:32:51 <fantasai> ... so what are the criteria we're looking for?
14:32:54 <fantasai> ... I should add them
14:32:58 <florian> q+
14:33:03 <plh> ... ack plh
14:33:05 <plh> ack plh
14:33:09 <plh> ack tink
14:33:21 <fantasai> ... can we think of all the criteria?
14:33:25 <plh> tink: I have a concern with using "when last voted"
14:33:37 <plh> ... some AC rep only vote in their area of interest
14:34:02 <plh> ... they have limit knowledge outside of their area
14:34:14 <plh> ... this would exclude some orgs
14:34:16 <plh> ack fl
14:34:33 <plh> florian: this is not to remove inactive ACs from the vote
14:34:46 <fantasai> s/the vote/the ability to vote/
14:35:06 <plh> ... this would exclude them for counting against the appeal, unless they vote
14:35:09 <dsinger> q+ to comment on abstain, maybe 'layers of votes' and to agree with Florian
14:35:41 <plh> ... if we reach 5% of the members who voted regularly, that should be enough
14:36:01 <plh> ... at this point, I would ask about voting records
14:36:39 <fantasai> ... what's the easiest way to ask, which proportion of the AC has voted in at least one thing in the past year or so?
14:36:51 <plh> ack fantasai
14:36:51 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond to tink
14:37:10 <plh> fantasai: if we need to make a change of the bylaws, and it needs 10% of Members saying "yes"
14:37:21 <plh> ... if a bunch of members don't pay attention
14:37:28 <wseltzer> q+ re governance vs Process
14:37:49 <plh> ... then the change shouldn't be 10% of everyone, but 10% who have put some amount of activity
14:38:10 <plh> ... otherwise we'll be stuck
14:38:21 <fantasai> tink: alright, convinced
14:38:26 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on abstain, maybe 'layers of votes' and to agree with Florian
14:38:27 <florian> [Bylaws have legal requirements so we might not have a choice, but if you swap that for Process in fantasai's example, then I agree]
14:38:33 <plh> dsinger: also, consider abstain to be a vote
14:38:57 <plh> ... I did put in GH the idea of counting different types of votes
14:39:18 <plh> [the one vote that will be difficult to count will be the BoD votes]
14:39:43 <plh> dsinger: charters, seats, etc. any type of votes
14:39:49 <plh> ... so let's ask systeam
14:39:58 <plh> ack ws
14:39:58 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss governance vs Process
14:40:10 <plh> wseltzer: this is the process cg, not the gov tf. let's focus on the process....
14:40:42 <plh> wseltzer: I suggest people think how it changes the numbers and expectation if quorum gets reduced
14:41:02 <plh> ... if you get inactive to members to support something, you're lowering the threshold
14:41:09 <dsinger> q+ to say we should change the percentage if it's a change to the count
14:41:11 <wseltzer> s/... if you get inactive to members to support something, you're lowering the threshold//
14:41:15 <plh> ACTION: plh to ask systeam about counting active members
14:41:44 <plh> fantasai: let's skip thinking about ways to game the system
14:41:45 <dsinger> ack ds
14:41:45 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to say we should change the percentage if it's a change to the count
14:42:24 <fantasai> subtopic: AC review of MOUs
14:42:29 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/606
14:43:01 <plh> fantasai: suggestion for advance notice, formal AC review
14:43:16 <florian> q+
14:43:42 <plh> florian: I suspect that MoUs are similar to contracts, so it's up to the board
14:43:54 <plh> ... we can't put must in the process, but we can put should
14:44:11 <plh> ... I don't think the AC can force the board to sign an MoU
14:44:21 <plh> ... but allowing the AC to raise concerns is a good thing
14:44:28 <plh> ... so prefer "advance notice"
14:44:56 <plh> plh: don't we have that today?
14:45:11 <plh> florian: today is the Director intends to sign it
14:45:22 <plh> ... difference is to ask for feedback before making a decision
14:45:29 <dsinger> +1 to 'considering'. But Fl is right, this is about to be a Board question
14:45:53 <plh> fantasai: we recommend that ACs be notified that MoUs are being considered so that they can provide their input
14:46:05 <plh> [straw poll]
14:46:09 <fantasai> +1
14:46:09 <florian> +1
14:46:11 <dsinger> +1
14:46:12 <plh> <plh> +1
14:46:14 <TallTed> +1
14:46:27 <wseltzer> 0
14:46:33 <cwilso> +1
14:46:48 <plh> Resolved: advance notice for MoUs
14:47:02 <plh> ACTION: florian to draft a pull request for MoU advance notices
14:47:18 <fantasai> Topic: ??
14:47:25 <fantasai> plh: Discussion of the 3 ??s
14:47:38 <fantasai> ... discussing organizing a session at TPAC
14:47:39 <wseltzer> s/??/I/
14:47:41 <florian> q+ to continue on the previous topic
14:47:54 <fantasai> ... I wonder if we have any input on that, any suggestion about who should be organizing that session?
14:48:06 <wseltzer> q+ to invite our quietest participant
14:48:18 <plh> ack ws
14:48:18 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to invite our quietest participant
14:48:33 <fantasai> wseltzer: Wanted to ask if TallTed had any topic to bring up
14:49:20 <plh> ack fl
14:49:20 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to continue on the previous topic
14:49:23 <fantasai> Topic: MOU continued
14:49:29 <fantasai> florian: I wonder if there's a mistake in the current Process
14:49:33 <plh> florian: on MoU, there might be a mistake in current process
14:49:49 <plh> ... currently, the text of the MoU is made available to the AC
14:50:10 <plh> ... the Process intends to say that but wording is unfortunate
14:50:44 <plh> ... I'll revert to the original intent and stops using "AC review"
14:51:05 <plh> ... or we want to switch on having an actual AC review
14:51:10 <wseltzer> q+
14:51:33 <plh> ack wseltzer
14:52:01 <plh> wseltzer: I think the reason to include MoUs was because those are technical arrangements
14:52:09 <plh> ... we want to keep them in the process
14:52:41 <plh> ... we should instantiate the process around what we want to happen for the technical work
14:53:10 <wseltzer> q+
14:53:36 <plh> fantasai: so, do we need require a formal AC review or informal for an MoU?
14:53:45 <wseltzer> q-
14:53:53 <wseltzer> q+
14:54:14 <plh> florian: yes, we have 3 ways: AC review, decision + informal review, or informal review
14:54:25 <plh> fantasai: we resolved for the 3rd one
14:54:52 <plh> wseltzer: after getting feedback on the recent MoU, we wanted to include more specific AC approval
14:55:15 <fantasai> plh: We wanted to involve the AC sooner
14:55:28 <fantasai> ... what we resolved is improvement, we don't make a decision without giving AC a chance to comment before the decision
14:55:42 <fantasai> ... whether we want to make a formal AC review yet, I don't know
14:55:48 <fantasai> ... I don't think we want to make it a formal review quite yet
14:56:04 <fantasai> ... but at minimum, we don't want Director to make a decision without getting input
14:56:10 <fantasai> ... or BoD in the future
14:56:55 <plh> fantasai: we need to clarify whether we want AC review or not
14:57:01 <florian> s/decision + informal review, or informal review/decision + possibility of appeal, or informal review prior to the decision/
14:57:31 <dsinger> q+ to ask that we take this up again next time after we read what's written
14:57:58 <plh> ack dsinger
14:57:58 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask that we take this up again next time after we read what's written
14:58:09 <wseltzer> q-
14:58:16 <plh> dsinger: let's take this next time and see what's intended
14:58:44 <plh> plh: let's let florian make a PR
14:59:05 <plh> florian: I'll make  a pull request
14:59:49 <fantasai> plh: next meeting is August 11th
15:00:06 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
15:00:12 <plh> [adjourned]
15:18:11 <wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:18:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer
15:28:17 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
15:58:10 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #w3process
16:06:52 <fantasai> TAG appointment continuity issue: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/613
16:06:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:07:51 <fantasai> i/Agenda: i/scribe+ fantasai/
16:07:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:08:23 <fantasai> i/Agenda: i/scribe+ plh/
16:08:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:10:13 <fantasai> i/Agenda: /scribe+ plh/
16:10:26 <fantasai> i/Agenda: /scribe+ fantasai/
16:10:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:12:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/28-w3process-minutes.html fantasai