14:00:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:00:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/25-w3process-irc
14:01:00 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:01:01 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:03:20 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
14:04:58 <jeff> scribe+
14:05:07 <wseltzer> present+
14:05:08 <fantasai> Topic: Merging Pull Requeests
14:05:14 <jeff> present+
14:05:19 <fantasai> Subtopic: Provide an explicit advance notice period for MoUs
14:05:24 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/619
14:05:41 <weiler> present+
14:05:52 <jeff> Fantasai: We resolved to merge ^^ unless there are objections
14:05:58 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3Process CG: Aug 25 Agenda -- https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e62960e7-ab1e-4523-bb33-c8513500b7f9
14:06:00 <TallTed> present+
14:06:04 <jeff> ... hearing none we should merge
14:06:04 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3Process CG: Aug 25 Agenda -- https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e62960e7-ab1e-4523-bb33-c8513500b7f9/20220825T070000
14:06:08 <tink> present+ Léonie (tink)
14:06:30 <florian> q?
14:06:34 <jeff> ... next we have ...
14:06:37 <fantasai> Subtopic: Council Ability to Defer Decisions
14:06:41 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/618
14:06:50 <wseltzer> zakim, permaqueue?
14:06:50 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, wseltzer.
14:06:54 <florian> PR here: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/621
14:07:11 <jeff> ... the AB discussed 618 and felt we should be able to defer
14:07:21 <jeff> Florian: I provided a minimal and simple PR
14:07:26 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3Process CG: Aug 25 Agenda -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Aug/0002.html
14:07:34 <jeff> ... but David pointed out maybe we want only simple majority
14:07:41 <jeff> ... also minor editorial question
14:07:42 <dsinger> q+
14:07:52 <jeff> ... have people reviewed?
14:08:02 <TallTed> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Aug/0002.html
14:08:03 <jeff> ... merge as is or ask AB about the type of majority
14:08:14 <jeff> David: I'm happy to merge and carry on conversations
14:08:33 <jeff> ... but what if a majority says not to have Council but not a supermajority
14:08:53 <jeff> ... so a majority wants to defer; but without a supermajority we can't defer
14:09:07 <jeff> ... so we have a Council when a majority doesn't want to be there
14:09:11 <jeff> ... unlikely...
14:09:32 <jeff> ... a majority which drive a supermajority
14:09:43 <jeff> ... but why allow such a case which would not work
14:10:02 <jeff> ... not useful but could create a hole
14:10:20 <jeff> Fantasai: Supermajority provides assurance that Councils would not be delegated lightly
14:10:38 <TallTed> q+
14:10:43 <jeff> ... while not likely, the higher bar for delegation makes Council process more in control of community
14:10:59 <jeff> ... if a large number doesn't want to be involved
14:11:14 <jeff> ... you have the same problem with 50%-1
14:11:30 <jeff> ... at that point Council will have trouble regardless
14:11:45 <florian> q+ to make a proposal
14:11:52 <jeff> ... so the small threshold between majority and supermajority is not a problem
14:12:01 <jeff> ... simple majority makes it too easy to send it elsewhere
14:12:21 <jeff> TallTed: A bit tangential, but...
14:12:29 <jeff> ... the word defer should be delegation
14:12:38 <jeff> ... defer means time; delegation means personnel
14:12:48 <jeff> David: PR uses delegation
14:12:58 <jeff> Florian: Because I already heard from Ted.
14:13:05 <jeff> Ted: Need to fix title of issue
14:13:12 <jeff> Florian: PR already has suggestion
14:13:25 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to make a proposal
14:13:28 <jeff> ... this PR is a PR into the DF branch; not the full process
14:13:34 <jeff> ... I suggest we take it as is
14:13:40 <jeff> ... raise the question back to AB
14:13:51 <jeff> ...  since we have an AB resolution
14:14:01 <dsinger> q+ to support Florian, and (minor) response
14:14:04 <jeff> ... so let's move it, and send back to AB for input
14:14:06 <fantasai> s/raise/and unless everyone is convinced by Elika, raise/
14:14:08 <jeff> David: SGTM
14:14:23 <jeff> ... taking Elika's point, you might want a supermajority to take it up
14:14:31 <jeff> ... but let's pull it and continue to ponder
14:14:48 <jeff> Florian: Proposed resolution.  Land this into DF branch and notify AB
14:14:54 <jeff> Fantasai: Objections?
14:14:57 <jeff> ... resolved.
14:15:08 <jeff> Subtopic: Tag appointment
14:15:24 <fantasai> i/Subtopic/RESOLVED: Land into DF branch and notify AB of the vote threshold question/
14:15:41 <jeff> Florian: The AB discussed TAG appointments and concurred that a committee was excessively complicated
14:15:43 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/611
14:15:57 <jeff> ... recommended that the Team come up with appointees with TAG ratification
14:16:19 <jeff> Florian: I updated the PR
14:16:28 <jeff> ... reasonable to review text
14:16:35 <jeff> ... diff is complex
14:16:50 <jeff> ... PR also has AB resolution with term limits for appointees
14:17:03 <jeff> ... sense of the room was "2".
14:17:16 <jeff> ... open question whether for second term you needed to run and fail
14:17:16 <dsinger> q+ to talk about standing for election
14:17:24 <jeff> ... PR is simpler - just 2 terms
14:17:44 <jeff> ... PR updated yesterday
14:17:52 <jeff> ... should discuss today and merge in the future
14:17:59 <jeff> ... unless reviews are done
14:18:16 <jeff> ... I also propose that we land it into the actual process
14:18:17 <jeff> q+
14:18:23 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to support Florian, and (minor) response and to talk about standing for election
14:18:34 <jeff> David: On standing for election; not sure what to do about this
14:18:44 <jeff> ... Dan says we should explore this
14:19:04 <jeff> ... we mentioned in the AB meeting, but didn't conclude
14:19:22 <jeff> ... I like the progression: appointed; appointed and stand for election; elected
14:19:39 <jeff> Florian: A little awkward to require failing an election
14:19:45 <jeff> ... rather keep it simple
14:20:00 <jeff> Leonie: You think it is a simple limit on number of times appointed.
14:20:04 <jeff> Florian: Yes.
14:20:20 <fantasai> scribe+
14:20:49 <fantasai> Florian: After 2 terms, have to either win an election or sit out a term in order to be appointed again.
14:20:59 <fantasai> jeff: Addressing question of merging into Process
14:21:19 <fantasai> ... If we have a Process update before Director-free Process takes effect
14:21:24 <fantasai> ... might want to do that before merging
14:21:29 <florian> q?
14:21:31 <fantasai> ... Still have Director on board atm
14:21:32 <florian> q+
14:21:46 <jeff> Florian: I don't want to surprise the Director
14:21:50 <jeff> ... I agree with that sentiment
14:22:05 <jeff> ... I thought we had decided that we would progressively land pieces if they are ready
14:22:15 <jeff> ... also we are not yet adopting the process
14:22:19 <jeff> ... target is q1
14:22:27 <dsinger> q+ to suggest we pull into DF with an open "issue" inline on whether to require standing for election for the second term
14:22:31 <jeff> ... just staging for adoption
14:23:05 <jeff> ... final note: since it is "the Team", Timbl could continue; although it adds a ratification step
14:23:17 <jeff> David: I'm fine with pulling this into DF
14:23:25 <jeff> ... DF is supposed to be next year
14:23:31 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we pull into DF with an open "issue" inline on whether to require standing for election for the second term
14:23:35 <jeff> ... open issue whether candidates should be required to stand for election
14:23:48 <jeff> ... discuss Dan's point
14:24:00 <jeff> ... reasonably done and put into DF branch
14:24:16 <jeff> Florian: DF branch is "ideas"; I propose we put it into the main one
14:24:17 <jeff> q+
14:24:35 <jeff> ... landing it into DF is where it already is
14:24:43 <jeff> ... landing it is into the main branch
14:24:52 <jeff> ... but I don't insist that we do it today
14:25:04 <jeff> Fantasai: I agree with Florian
14:25:18 <jeff> ... we have started to pull DF into the next process branch
14:25:31 <jeff> ... we are moving whatever we can of DF into the process branch
14:25:42 <jeff> ... we've been keeping things in DF for years
14:25:42 <florian> q+
14:25:59 <jeff> ... time to bring into main branch because DF is the next process.
14:26:19 <wseltzer> +1 to focus on DF
14:26:23 <jeff> ... if we need a separate Process 2023, we can cherry-pick them into a separate update
14:26:28 <wseltzer> s/focus/keep focus/
14:26:35 <jeff> ... if we are landing it, we should land it into main branch
14:26:51 <florian> qq+
14:26:58 <jeff> David: I am lost.  This is less mature than Council.
14:27:06 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to react to dsinger
14:27:08 <jeff> Florian: Let me explain what the DF branch is.
14:27:26 <jeff> ... it is an integration of all DF PRs merged together
14:27:36 <jeff> ... not those we have accepted; but those we have been working on
14:27:43 <jeff> ... probably hasty to land today
14:27:48 <jeff> ... but not soon
14:27:57 <jeff> ... so this PR is there already.
14:28:21 <fantasai> jeff: Thanks fantasai for clarification that we're focused on DF for next release of Process
14:28:28 <fantasai> ... maybe that was decided at a recent meeting that I missed
14:28:41 <fantasai> ... If we're doing that, and understanding how large a change to the Process DF is going to be
14:28:50 <fantasai> ... it might suggest a different way that we approach the work in this group to get that done
14:29:11 <fantasai> ... In particular, top-down, the most important thing we need to finalize to get DF done
14:29:17 <fantasai> ... what are the decisions we need to make?
14:29:22 <fantasai> ... drive it hard from that POV
14:29:36 <fantasai> ... We have TPAC coming up, some presentation on Process?
14:29:44 <fantasai> ... Might be worth sharing that 2023 is DF year for Process
14:29:57 <fantasai> ... And maybe identify what needs to be done, and use that as a call for action for people to get involved
14:30:01 <florian> q+
14:30:07 <fantasai> ... In all the details, there's a lot to get done
14:30:09 <dsinger> q+ to suggest we open the issue, and inline it, on standing for election, and leave the mail branch pull request pending
14:30:26 <jeff> Florian: It's a big job, but we have done a large piece.
14:30:32 <jeff> ... already landed the small parts
14:30:37 <jeff> ... left with TAG and Council
14:30:39 <jeff> q+
14:30:45 <jeff> ... another round of small details
14:30:54 <jeff> ... big ones are "this" and the Council
14:31:04 <jeff> ... not today, but we should be prepared to land them.
14:31:08 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we open the issue, and inline it, on standing for election, and leave the mail branch pull request pending
14:31:15 <jeff> David: We are in violent agreement
14:31:26 <jeff> ... Florian says it is hasty to land.
14:31:51 <jeff> ... let's file it; alert the TAG and AB; and put in the DF branch
14:32:08 <jeff> ... maybe we don't need a DF branch.  Don't need a staging area.
14:32:28 <florian> q+
14:32:49 <fantasai> jeff: I'm delighted to hear from Florian that we're almost done
14:33:05 <fantasai> ... I hope that when we present this to the AC next month, we can express how we're almost done
14:33:10 <fantasai> ... and point out what remains to be done
14:33:29 <fantasai> ... We may be almost done in Florian's mind, but we have to get to a point that we're almost done in the community's mind
14:33:37 <fantasai> ... and I don't think we have sent any broad calls for coment yet
14:33:57 <fantasai> ... when we have just the 8 of us, 2 of whom admittedly forgot about exactly what's in the DF branch and what isn't
14:34:07 <fantasai> ... it's possible the others not here are also confused
14:34:16 <fantasai> ... so I think we need to focus on improving communications for TPAC
14:34:18 <fantasai> florian: That seems fair
14:34:24 <fantasai> florian: Two nuances for "almost done"
14:34:24 <jeff> Florian: That seems fair
14:34:42 <jeff> ... almost done finding "a" replacement for each mention of Director
14:34:51 <jeff> ... there will be tweaks to be made
14:34:58 <jeff> ... close to "a" process
14:35:08 <jeff> ... DF branch was important early on
14:35:21 <jeff> ... I needed to consolidate PRs that were outstanding
14:35:27 <jeff> ... so let's keep it since it exists
14:35:49 <jeff> ... yes, we should broaden requests
14:35:57 <jeff> ... we've had 2-3 TPAC presentations
14:36:01 <jeff> ... need to do it again
14:36:23 <jeff> Fantasai: Let's leave the PR open for review for next meeting
14:36:35 <jeff> Florian: Week before TPAC
14:36:44 <jeff> Fantasai: Leave it for the 8th
14:36:54 <jeff> ... if no objections we'll merge it on that day
14:37:04 <dsinger> q+ to ask how to handle the "must stand for election to be eligible for appointment for a second term"?
14:37:06 <jeff> ... we've been commissioned to put the text in the process
14:37:15 <jeff> ... specific issues should be filed
14:37:21 <jeff> ... not prevent us from landing this
14:37:32 <florian> q+
14:37:39 <jeff> ... election piece can be adjusted with issues
14:37:52 <jeff> ... gives us everything we need aside from Council
14:38:07 <jeff> ... agree with Jeff - need to improve our communications
14:38:27 <jeff> ... several more months of review and comment
14:38:37 <jeff> ... won't solve all DF problems
14:39:36 <fantasai> fantasai: Jeff, what do you suggest should be communicated to the AC before TPAC?
14:39:49 <fantasai> jeff: Since we're all together, good opportunity, to have info in presentation
14:39:56 <fantasai> ... might be good to give an update prior to TPAC
14:40:20 <fantasai> ... and reminder as we get back from vacation that we're working on important things, and ppl might want to up their participation level
14:40:44 <jeff> David: How should we handle the question of requiring people to stand for election
14:40:56 <jeff> ... should I file an issue; should Florian in-line>
14:41:07 <jeff> Fantasai: It is already open in the issue
14:41:12 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/613
14:41:15 <jeff> Florian: Focused issues are good.
14:41:22 <jeff> David: OK, I'll file something.
14:41:37 <jeff> Florian: We want people to look at text, not PRs
14:41:50 <jeff> ... so for ease of review, we should land this in two weeks
14:42:03 <jeff> ... then another PR with an issue to go along whether to require an additional election
14:42:14 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask how to handle the "must stand for election to be eligible for appointment for a second term"?
14:42:23 <jeff> ... want to avoid a branch of branch
14:42:32 <jeff> Fantasai: Plan: Merge this next meeting
14:42:52 <jeff> ... because a dedicated issue for TAG continuity with two things in it
14:43:20 <jeff> ... Florian; post specifically the text you added to the issue and mention the f/u question whether the first reappointment requires failing an election
14:43:29 <jeff> ... all context together.
14:43:36 <jeff> Florian: Action accepted.
14:43:53 <jeff> action: florian to post text
14:44:07 <jeff> Florian: Reaction to the substance of the PR?
14:44:34 <jeff> ... thanks to Ted for the review
14:44:41 <jeff> ... comforting that people are reading it
14:44:44 <jeff> Ted: At least one
14:44:51 <jeff> Florian: One more than zero
14:45:10 <jeff> David: The appointment doesn't happen until ratification
14:45:18 <jeff> ... so maybe the team "nominates"
14:45:27 <jeff> Florian: I'll look at it
14:45:33 <jeff> David: Doesn't matter either way
14:45:53 <jeff> Florian: "Nominate" might be thought of elsewhere
14:45:54 <jeff> q+
14:46:14 <fantasai> jeff: English language is very rich, so maybe another word might be appropriate
14:46:31 <dsinger> ack je
14:46:31 <jeff> ... e.g. "propose"
14:47:01 <jeff> Topic: Threshold or appeals?
14:47:05 <fantasai> s/elsewhere/elsewhere, e.g. the community is supposed to be able to suggest possible appointees/
14:47:15 <fantasai> i/Topic/dsinger: Right, nevermind then
14:47:26 <florian> agenda+ should we retire the director-free branch?
14:47:35 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/604#issuecomment-1214240255
14:47:36 <jeff> q+ with comments on thresholds
14:48:07 <fantasai> jeff: I think I posted that it seemed some of the discussion would be a formula, e.g. fraction of whoever is active, adjust the threshold
14:48:10 <fantasai> ... it's very messy
14:48:19 <fantasai> ... if we think the current thresholds are off because not everyone is participating
14:48:24 <fantasai> ... we should just change the numeric value
14:48:39 <fantasai> ... I don't think participation patterns will change year to year, so just update the numbers in the Process
14:48:58 <fantasai> ... if 15 years from now it's akilter, can change it again
14:49:03 <fantasai> ... rather than some formula
14:49:26 <jeff> Fantasai: My concern is that we may not realize what we are aiming for
14:49:36 <jeff> ... no one will remember to check in every few years
14:49:41 <dsinger> q+
14:49:43 <florian> q+
14:50:00 <weiler> [why can't we specify a percentage?]
14:50:04 <jeff> ... I prefer to say "5% of those that are participating in some way"
14:50:17 <jeff> ... less likely to get out of date
14:50:23 <jeff> David: That's where we are today
14:50:42 <fantasai> s/that we may not/that 10 years down the line we may not/
14:50:44 <jeff> .... number is absurdly low because we expected low participation
14:50:51 <jeff> ... not sure whether worth adjusting
14:50:56 <jeff> q+
14:51:02 <jeff> ... agree with Elika
14:51:03 <dsinger> ack ds
14:51:07 <dsinger> ack fl
14:51:09 <jeff> Florian: I am neither here nor there
14:51:24 <jeff> ... I don't know whether 5%, 2.5%, or 12% is right
14:51:43 <jeff> ... but when you fail a 5% by 1 or 2 votes is a problem
14:51:53 <jeff> ... especially since some do not have an AC rep
14:52:04 <jeff> ... keep the 5% of those that could vote
14:52:17 <wseltzer> or just reconceive it as the threshold is low because it accounts for inactivity
14:52:44 <dsinger> q+ to say that "the AC Rep doesn't seem to exist because their email is bouncing or their phone never answers" is hard to automate
14:52:47 <fantasai> jeff: I think Florian's talking about a roundoff error
14:53:02 <fantasai> ... whatever threshold you set, .e.g. it could have happened in August/December when ppl on vacation
14:53:09 <fantasai> ... we have 10 orgs that don't have an AC rep
14:53:17 <fantasai> ... whatever threshold you choose, possibility of missing threshold by 1
14:53:25 <fantasai> ... don't think there's so much we can do about this level of error
14:53:40 <fantasai> ... Again, I understand that all of us, myself included, are unhappy about low participation
14:53:54 <fantasai> ... but we don't fix this problem by changing these numbers
14:54:16 <fantasai> ... I also have a concern that, while participation doesn't change much in general, there could be extraordinary events that change participation
14:54:29 <TallTed> q+
14:54:35 <fantasai> ... imagine that participation rates skyrocketed for some reason, e.g. maybe participating in the BoD elections
14:54:51 <fantasai> ... but if that's their only participation, then maybe it's not reasonable to change the threshold
14:54:56 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to say that "the AC Rep doesn't seem to exist because their email is bouncing or their phone never answers" is hard to automate
14:55:14 <jeff> David: I agree with Florian on question of whether you have an AC rep
14:55:20 <jeff> ... automatable
14:55:23 <florian> q+
14:55:29 <jeff> ... but what if they are not current
14:55:40 <jeff> ... harder to automate
14:55:58 <jeff> ... people will challenge results: you eliminated ACME, but they are still around
14:56:06 <jeff> ... the result is hence wrong
14:56:14 <jeff> ... or conversely.  someone just died.
14:56:30 <jeff> ... don't want to get into whether the vote was accurate
14:56:48 <jeff> ... AC reps that are hard to find will result in challenges to results
14:57:04 <jeff> Ted: Worth polling AC reps to find out why they do not participate
14:57:11 <jeff> ... which will have a low participation rate
14:57:21 <jeff> ... otherwise we are throwing darts at the wall
14:57:37 <jeff> ... our CEO is the AC rep and he is overloaded
14:57:39 <jeff> q+
14:57:52 <jeff> ... he needs to be told
14:57:59 <jeff> ... probably a fair number of cases
14:58:04 <fantasai> s/told/told exactly what to do/
14:58:08 <jeff> ... also could be voter fatigues
14:58:26 <jeff> ... should votes be staggered or stacked up on one day.
14:58:43 <jeff> ... if people are busy it may not be solvable
14:58:56 <florian> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList
14:59:00 <jeff> Florian: It is automated already.
14:59:21 <jeff> ... lists who is bouncing
14:59:31 <jeff> ... more than 20 which moves the threshold
14:59:57 <florian> s/more than 20/more than 20 bounce or lack an AC rep,/
15:00:00 <fantasai> jeff: Ted, idk if applicable to your case, but we did introduce concept of Alternate AC Rep
15:00:15 <fantasai> ... so if your CEO is too busy, maybe he can designate you as alternate
15:00:45 <jeff> Ted: That helps but relieves only part of the burden
15:00:56 <jeff> Fantasai: I'll break it up into multiple pieces
15:01:19 <jeff> ... 1. Should we exclude from the count those that have not designated AC rep
15:01:39 <wseltzer> [I support count based on total members]
15:01:44 <jeff> ... 2. Include companies that have no AC rep in the count
15:01:45 <TallTed> knowing about 12 bounces doesn't inform about *why* bouncing -- 3 changed company (and should be pinged at the new, to get *them* to join W3C), 3 retired entirely, 6 have had internet embargoed in their countries so phone them
15:01:49 <florian> 1
15:01:55 <fantasai> 1
15:01:56 <jeff> <jeff> 2
15:02:01 <wseltzer> 2
15:02:04 <dsinger> 1
15:02:05 <weiler> 2
15:02:21 <weiler> [keep it simple, even if that means we need to lower the %age]
15:02:27 <jeff> Fantasai: close the call here.
15:04:25 <TallTed> no AC Rep == implicitly abstaining from votes
15:04:41 <jeff> Fantasai: Not good practice to put constants into your code without the supporting logic
15:04:54 <jeff> David: No AC rep is quantifiable
15:05:06 <jeff> Wendy: We are not talking about a quorum
15:06:49 <TallTed> I think DF Branch is helpful until the whole branch is merged into/becomes Main
15:07:04 <dsinger> appeals are a quorum, effectively
15:07:59 <jeff> [adjourned]
15:07:59 <wseltzer> but we're not talking about a percentage of the quorum, just a quantum of the total
15:08:04 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
15:08:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/25-w3process-minutes.html jeff
15:19:22 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #w3process