Meeting minutes
Appeal process for proposals #478
github: https://
Github: https://
fantasai: can't think anything we can do about this issue
… anyone object to closing?
<cwilso> +1 support closing
RESOLUTION: #478 is closed
Pull Requests
Maturity Levels is a weird term
github: https://
fantasai: s/Maturity level/Maturity stage"
<wseltzer> no objection
florian: old and new fragids will work
RESOLUTION: Merge #612
approval vs verification
github: https://
fantasai: editorial tweaks around Team involvement
florian: started with naive replacement. needed to make more tweaks. result is the pull request
RESOLUTION: merge #586
Director-free TAG
github: https://
fantasai: this is based on discussion within the AB and the TAG
florian: couple of minor words smithing
… so far, the Director chooses the chair of the TAG. in future, the TAG will
… Director appoints 3 members of the TAG
… replacement is to have an appointment committee
… committee would start after the election result
… committee is a subset of the TAG
… (not for reelection)
… subset of WG chairs
… with some filtering mechanisms to take active ones
… with a team contact
… see details in pull request
… we can iterate some more
… there are remaining concerns about this being complicated
… just got feedback from the TAG that it might be too complicated
… but it wasn't the direction of the AB
… not proposed for merger today
+
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest we should have TAG+AB members meet (Dan suggested at TPAC) to discuss
cwilso: Dan commented in the pull request yesterday to meet at TPAC to discuss
… need to get the TAG and the AB together for a direction
… concerned about complexity but that doesn't make it wrong
… I do like that the TAG is looking for optimization
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about rationale
dsinger: +1 on being complex
florian: would be good to speak with the TAG again
… but we had at least one AB meeting in Quebec and one in Fukuoka
… present text includes TAG viewpoint as much as AB viewpoint
fantasai: let's take the text for review. schedule a session at TPAC
… it seems that we might also want to have a discussion with the TAG minus the appointed members
florian: while this is a fair amount of text, I don't think it's that complex
… something that appears that isn't too complex like dismall process have caused a lot of details :(
… here, it needs to be in sync with the election but before the start of the term
… delays will make things longer
<wseltzer> plh: time is elastic
<wseltzer> ... in the council experiments, things have taken much longer than anticipated
<wseltzer> ... I'd encourage TAG and AB to meet at TPAC; they don't need Process CG
<wseltzer> ... Also, we should be aware we already send a deluge of emails to the AC already;
<wseltzer> fantasai: we're selecting from among chairs, not AC
florian: action is for everyone to review the text and the chairs oif the AB and TAG to convene a conversation
ACTION: Everyone to review text of PR #611
ACTION: AB + TAG organize a joint session at TPAC, possibly without appointed members
fantasai: one thing to tweak might be to have the appointed members to stand for election at their next turn
… appointment committee might still appoint them if they win but that will look weird
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we bounce this to the AB+TAG and to
dsinger: let's open an issue on limits of consecutive terms
[temporarily suspended scribing]
fantasai: so let's leave this to AB + TAG chairs to organize
fantasai: and Process CG should review wording to make sure that if we go with this direction, we are happy with the wording
Up for Discussion
Making thresholds relative to actively-participating AC
github: https://
florian: one might need to wait until the LE is operating
… since criteria may vary
… (payed dues, email bouncing, etc.)
… calculating the % based on active members
… but number of definitions for "active members"
fantasai: let's take a strawpoll on whether we should do something about it
fantasai: should we modify the count on the AC for the percentage to be relative to a subset of members
wseltzer: I don't feel strongly but admin challenges in tracking activity may be greater than the benefit
fantasai: it will make a difference for appeals
wseltzer: I recognize the argument but worried about overhead
dsinger: we should ask the system about what is easy to implement
… like last voted date
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask the systeam for comment
dsinger: if they can't, we should think again
florian: +1 to ask systeam. we have email archive.
… sent email, participating on votes
… has an AC rep
... 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
plh: I'm happy to ask the systeam
<florian> https://
plh: but like to know what to ask exactly
… they are tracking multiple factors
… so what are the criteria we're looking for?
… I should add them
florian: ack plh
plh: can we think of all the criteria?
tink: I have a concern with using "when last voted"
… some AC rep only vote in their area of interest
… they have limit knowledge outside of their area
… this would exclude some orgs
florian: this is not to remove inactive ACs from the ability to vote
… this would exclude them for counting against the appeal, unless they vote
… if we reach 5% of the members who voted regularly, that should be enough
… at this point, I would ask about voting records
plh: 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?
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond to tink
fantasai: if we need to make a change of the bylaws, and it needs 10% of Members saying "yes"
… if a bunch of members don't pay attention
… then the change shouldn't be 10% of everyone, but 10% who have put some amount of activity
… otherwise we'll be stuck
tink: alright, convinced
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on abstain, maybe 'layers of votes' and to agree with Florian
<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]
dsinger: also, consider abstain to be a vote
… I did put in GH the idea of counting different types of votes
[the one vote that will be difficult to count will be the BoD votes]
dsinger: charters, seats, etc. any type of votes
… so let's ask systeam
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss governance vs Process
wseltzer: this is the process cg, not the gov tf. let's focus on the process....
wseltzer: I suggest people think how it changes the numbers and expectation if quorum gets reduced
ACTION: plh to ask systeam about counting active members
fantasai: let's skip thinking about ways to game the system
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to say we should change the percentage if it's a change to the count
AC review of MOUs
github: https://
fantasai: suggestion for advance notice, formal AC review
florian: I suspect that MoUs are similar to contracts, so it's up to the board
… we can't put must in the process, but we can put should
… I don't think the AC can force the board to sign an MoU
… but allowing the AC to raise concerns is a good thing
… so prefer "advance notice"
plh: don't we have that today?
florian: today is the Director intends to sign it
… difference is to ask for feedback before making a decision
<dsinger> +1 to 'considering'. But Fl is right, this is about to be a Board question
fantasai: we recommend that ACs be notified that MoUs are being considered so that they can provide their input
[straw poll]
+1
<florian> +1
<dsinger> +1
<plh> +1
<TallTed> +1
<wseltzer> 0
<cwilso> +1
RESOLUTION: advance notice for MoUs
ACTION: florian to draft a pull request for MoU advance notices
??
plh: Discussion of the 3 Is
… discussing organizing a session at TPAC
… I wonder if we have any input on that, any suggestion about who should be organizing that session?
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to invite our quietest participant
wseltzer: Wanted to ask if TallTed had any topic to bring up
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to continue on the previous topic
MOU continued
florian: I wonder if there's a mistake in the current Process
florian: on MoU, there might be a mistake in current process
… currently, the text of the MoU is made available to the AC
… the Process intends to say that but wording is unfortunate
… I'll revert to the original intent and stops using "AC review"
… or we want to switch on having an actual AC review
wseltzer: I think the reason to include MoUs was because those are technical arrangements
… we want to keep them in the process
… we should instantiate the process around what we want to happen for the technical work
fantasai: so, do we need require a formal AC review or informal for an MoU?
florian: yes, we have 3 ways: AC review, decision + possibility of appeal, or informal review prior to the decision
fantasai: we resolved for the 3rd one
wseltzer: after getting feedback on the recent MoU, we wanted to include more specific AC approval
plh: We wanted to involve the AC sooner
… what we resolved is improvement, we don't make a decision without giving AC a chance to comment before the decision
… whether we want to make a formal AC review yet, I don't know
… I don't think we want to make it a formal review quite yet
… but at minimum, we don't want Director to make a decision without getting input
… or BoD in the future
fantasai: we need to clarify whether we want AC review or not
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask that we take this up again next time after we read what's written
dsinger: let's take this next time and see what's intended
plh: let's let florian make a PR
florian: I'll make a pull request
plh: next meeting is August 11th
Meeting closed.
[adjourned]
TAG appointment continuity issue: https://
<fantasai> i/Agenda: i/scribe+ fantasai/
<fantasai> i/Agenda: i/scribe+ plh/