– DRAFT –
Revising W3C Process Community Group

Merging Pull Requeests

Provide an explicit advance notice period for MoUs

<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/619

Fantasai: We resolved to merge ^^ unless there are objections
… hearing none we should merge
… next we have ...

Council Ability to Defer Decisions

<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/618

<florian> PR here: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/621

Fantasai: the AB discussed 618 and felt we should be able to defer

Florian: I provided a minimal and simple PR
… but David pointed out maybe we want only simple majority
… also minor editorial question
… have people reviewed?
… merge as is or ask AB about the type of majority

David: I'm happy to merge and carry on conversations
… but what if a majority says not to have Council but not a supermajority
… so a majority wants to defer; but without a supermajority we can't defer
… so we have a Council when a majority doesn't want to be there
… unlikely...
… a majority which drive a supermajority
… but why allow such a case which would not work
… not useful but could create a hole

Fantasai: Supermajority provides assurance that Councils would not be delegated lightly
… while not likely, the higher bar for delegation makes Council process more in control of community
… if a large number doesn't want to be involved
… you have the same problem with 50%-1
… at that point Council will have trouble regardless
… so the small threshold between majority and supermajority is not a problem
… simple majority makes it too easy to send it elsewhere

TallTed: A bit tangential, but...
… the word defer should be delegation
… defer means time; delegation means personnel

David: PR uses delegation

Florian: Because I already heard from Ted.

Ted: Need to fix title of issue

Florian: PR already has suggestion

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to make a proposal

Florian: this PR is a PR into the DF branch; not the full process
… I suggest we take it as is
… and unless everyone is convinced by Elika, raise the question back to AB
… since we have an AB resolution
… so let's move it, and send back to AB for input

David: SGTM
… taking Elika's point, you might want a supermajority to take it up
… but let's pull it and continue to ponder

Florian: Proposed resolution. Land this into DF branch and notify AB

Fantasai: Objections?
… resolved.

RESOLUTION: Land into DF branch and notify AB of the vote threshold question

Tag appointment

Florian: The AB discussed TAG appointments and concurred that a committee was excessively complicated

<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/611

Florian: recommended that the Team come up with appointees with TAG ratification

Florian: I updated the PR
… reasonable to review text
… diff is complex
… PR also has AB resolution with term limits for appointees
… sense of the room was "2".
… open question whether for second term you needed to run and fail
… PR is simpler - just 2 terms
… PR updated yesterday
… should discuss today and merge in the future
… unless reviews are done
… I also propose that we land it into the actual process

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to support Florian, and (minor) response and to talk about standing for election

David: On standing for election; not sure what to do about this
… Dan says we should explore this
… we mentioned in the AB meeting, but didn't conclude
… I like the progression: appointed; appointed and stand for election; elected

Florian: A little awkward to require failing an election
… rather keep it simple

Leonie: You think it is a simple limit on number of times appointed.

Florian: Yes.

Florian: After 2 terms, have to either win an election or sit out a term in order to be appointed again.

jeff: Addressing question of merging into Process
… If we have a Process update before Director-free Process takes effect
… might want to do that before merging
… Still have Director on board atm

Florian: I don't want to surprise the Director
… I agree with that sentiment
… I thought we had decided that we would progressively land pieces if they are ready
… also we are not yet adopting the process
… target is q1
… just staging for adoption
… final note: since it is "the Team", Timbl could continue; although it adds a ratification step

David: I'm fine with pulling this into DF
… DF is supposed to be next year

<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

David: open issue whether candidates should be required to stand for election
… discuss Dan's point
… reasonably done and put into DF branch

Florian: DF branch is "ideas"; I propose we put it into the main one
… landing it into DF is where it already is
… landing it is into the main branch
… but I don't insist that we do it today

Fantasai: I agree with Florian
… we have started to pull DF into the next process branch
… we are moving whatever we can of DF into the process branch
… we've been keeping things in DF for years
… time to bring into main branch because DF is the next process.

<wseltzer> +1 to keep focus on DF

Fantasai: if we need a separate Process 2023, we can cherry-pick them into a separate update
… if we are landing it, we should land it into main branch

David: I am lost. This is less mature than Council.

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to react to dsinger

Florian: Let me explain what the DF branch is.
… it is an integration of all DF PRs merged together
… not those we have accepted; but those we have been working on
… probably hasty to land today
… but not soon
… so this PR is there already.

jeff: Thanks fantasai for clarification that we're focused on DF for next release of Process
… maybe that was decided at a recent meeting that I missed
… If we're doing that, and understanding how large a change to the Process DF is going to be
… it might suggest a different way that we approach the work in this group to get that done
… In particular, top-down, the most important thing we need to finalize to get DF done
… what are the decisions we need to make?
… drive it hard from that POV
… We have TPAC coming up, some presentation on Process?
… Might be worth sharing that 2023 is DF year for Process
… And maybe identify what needs to be done, and use that as a call for action for people to get involved
… In all the details, there's a lot to get done

Florian: It's a big job, but we have done a large piece.
… already landed the small parts
… left with TAG and Council
… another round of small details
… big ones are "this" and the Council
… not today, but we should be prepared to land them.

<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

David: We are in violent agreement
… Florian says it is hasty to land.
… let's file it; alert the TAG and AB; and put in the DF branch
… maybe we don't need a DF branch. Don't need a staging area.

jeff: I'm delighted to hear from Florian that we're almost done
… I hope that when we present this to the AC next month, we can express how we're almost done
… and point out what remains to be done
… 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
… and I don't think we have sent any broad calls for coment yet
… 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
… it's possible the others not here are also confused
… so I think we need to focus on improving communications for TPAC

florian: That seems fair

florian: Two nuances for "almost done"

Florian: That seems fair
… almost done finding "a" replacement for each mention of Director
… there will be tweaks to be made
… close to "a" process
… DF branch was important early on
… I needed to consolidate PRs that were outstanding
… so let's keep it since it exists
… yes, we should broaden requests
… we've had 2-3 TPAC presentations
… need to do it again

Fantasai: Let's leave the PR open for review for next meeting

Florian: Week before TPAC

Fantasai: Leave it for the 8th
… if no objections we'll merge it on that day
… we've been commissioned to put the text in the process
… specific issues should be filed
… not prevent us from landing this
… election piece can be adjusted with issues
… gives us everything we need aside from Council
… agree with Jeff - need to improve our communications
… several more months of review and comment
… won't solve all DF problems

fantasai: Jeff, what do you suggest should be communicated to the AC before TPAC?

jeff: Since we're all together, good opportunity, to have info in presentation
… might be good to give an update prior to TPAC
… and reminder as we get back from vacation that we're working on important things, and ppl might want to up their participation level

David: How should we handle the question of requiring people to stand for election
… should I file an issue; should Florian in-line>

Fantasai: It is already open in the issue

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/613

Florian: Focused issues are good.

David: OK, I'll file something.

Florian: We want people to look at text, not PRs
… so for ease of review, we should land this in two weeks
… then another PR with an issue to go along whether to require an additional election

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask how to handle the "must stand for election to be eligible for appointment for a second term"?

Florian: want to avoid a branch of branch

Fantasai: Plan: Merge this next meeting
… because a dedicated issue for TAG continuity with two things in it
… Florian; post specifically the text you added to the issue and mention the f/u question whether the first reappointment requires failing an election
… all context together.

Florian: Action accepted.

ACTION: florian to post text

Florian: Reaction to the substance of the PR?
… thanks to Ted for the review
… comforting that people are reading it

Ted: At least one

Florian: One more than zero

David: The appointment doesn't happen until ratification
… so maybe the team "nominates"

Florian: I'll look at it

David: Doesn't matter either way

Florian: "Nominate" might be thought of elsewhere, e.g. the community is supposed to be able to suggest possible appointees

jeff: English language is very rich, so maybe another word might be appropriate

Florian: e.g. "propose"

dsinger: Right, nevermind then

Threshold or appeals?

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/604#issuecomment-1214240255

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
… it's very messy
… if we think the current thresholds are off because not everyone is participating
… we should just change the numeric value
… I don't think participation patterns will change year to year, so just update the numbers in the Process
… if 15 years from now it's akilter, can change it again
… rather than some formula

Fantasai: My concern is that 10 years down the line we may not realize what we are aiming for
… no one will remember to check in every few years

<weiler> [why can't we specify a percentage?]

Fantasai: I prefer to say "5% of those that are participating in some way"
… less likely to get out of date

David: That's where we are today
… number is absurdly low because we expected low participation
… not sure whether worth adjusting
… agree with Elika

Florian: I am neither here nor there
… I don't know whether 5%, 2.5%, or 12% is right
… but when you fail a 5% by 1 or 2 votes is a problem
… especially since some do not have an AC rep
… keep the 5% of those that could vote

<wseltzer> or just reconceive it as the threshold is low because it accounts for inactivity

jeff: I think Florian's talking about a roundoff error
… whatever threshold you set, .e.g. it could have happened in August/December when ppl on vacation
… we have 10 orgs that don't have an AC rep
… whatever threshold you choose, possibility of missing threshold by 1
… don't think there's so much we can do about this level of error
… Again, I understand that all of us, myself included, are unhappy about low participation
… but we don't fix this problem by changing these numbers
… I also have a concern that, while participation doesn't change much in general, there could be extraordinary events that change participation
… imagine that participation rates skyrocketed for some reason, e.g. maybe participating in the BoD elections
… but if that's their only participation, then maybe it's not reasonable to change the threshold

<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

David: I agree with Florian on question of whether you have an AC rep
… automatable
… but what if they are not current
… harder to automate
… people will challenge results: you eliminated ACME, but they are still around
… the result is hence wrong
… or conversely. someone just died.
… don't want to get into whether the vote was accurate
… AC reps that are hard to find will result in challenges to results

Ted: Worth polling AC reps to find out why they do not participate
… which will have a low participation rate
… otherwise we are throwing darts at the wall
… our CEO is the AC rep and he is overloaded
… he needs to be told exactly what to do
… probably a fair number of cases
… also could be voter fatigues
… should votes be staggered or stacked up on one day.
… if people are busy it may not be solvable

<florian> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList

Florian: It is automated already.
… lists who is bouncing
… more than 20 bounce or lack an AC rep, which moves the threshold

jeff: Ted, idk if applicable to your case, but we did introduce concept of Alternate AC Rep
… so if your CEO is too busy, maybe he can designate you as alternate

Ted: That helps but relieves only part of the burden

Fantasai: I'll break it up into multiple pieces
… 1. Should we exclude from the count those that have not designated AC rep

<wseltzer> [I support count based on total members]

Fantasai: 2. Include companies that have no AC rep in the count

<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

<florian> 1

1

<jeff> 2

<wseltzer> 2

<dsinger> 1

<weiler> 2

<weiler> [keep it simple, even if that means we need to lower the %age]

Fantasai: close the call here.

<TallTed> no AC Rep == implicitly abstaining from votes

Fantasai: Not good practice to put constants into your code without the supporting logic

David: No AC rep is quantifiable

Wendy: We are not talking about a quorum

<TallTed> I think DF Branch is helpful until the whole branch is merged into/becomes Main

<dsinger> appeals are a quorum, effectively

[adjourned]

<wseltzer> but we're not talking about a percentage of the quorum, just a quantum of the total