Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Volunteers to scribe?
Chris: Me!
Nigel: One agenda item today, thanks for joining. Response to the team report from Atsushi for the FO Council experiment on our charter update
… Anything else?
(nothing)
Response to team's charter FO report
Nigel: You should all have a link to the report
Nigel: Atsushi, you sent a call for comment. The two parties who can comment, according to the draft process, are the deciders and the objectors
… We are the deciders, we've been given a week to respond.
… There's a decision review period of 2 weeks, 10 working days
… I don't think we can sensibly respond as a WG with the Chairs assessing WG consensus to have a WG decision to respond with any particular text
… That's the first problem
… My proposal to deal with that is for Gary and I to send a Chairs' response
… I'd like to share our draft response with you in this call, and get to a point where Gary and I are happy, and that's the basis of what we'd send
… Does that make sense from a procedural point of view?
Andreas: Are you looking for consensus on the draft?
Nigel: Yes, purpose here is to assess some level of consensus without going through the full decision review period
… [shares screen with draft text]
… I'll go through and please comment
… The first is the note on procedure, to make a Chairs' response rather than a TTWG consensus, but we will try to get consensus in this meeting
Pierre: I'd suggest a few tweaks here
… [edited to update]
Nigel: Three categories: substantive comments, editorial comments, and process observations for the FO Council experiment
Nigel: You're in a strange position, as the one who wrote the report. Please comment as a WG member
Atsushi: I sent a message on behalf of the team, it's the team's report, not my report
Nigel: That's possibly not clear enough
Pierre: So clarify the document was shared by the team
Atsushi: It was shared after team review, so it's the team's report
Gary: The provenance of the document can get confusing, who drafted it
Pierre: The author isn't TTWG, it's shared on behalf of the team by its editor
Nigel: But Atsushi is a WG member, as well as on the team
Pierre: I see, that wasn't clear in the draft
Atsushi: On that point, I somehow feel the team report should be consistent in two parts: a totally independent report, recorded history, and some comment from the team/team contact closely related to the WG
… So I'm confused by the overall configuration of this document actually
Nigel: It's difficult for all of us
Nigel: The substantive comments. The procedural history section should contain the background to the decision, including timeline, and missed opportunities to comment
… This is mentioned in the report, but I'm asking to make it clear in the timeline
… The procedural history should describe the attempts to resolve. I was advised by Philippe on a call that we didn't need to address Mozilla's comments
… So now, it's a matter of importance. Presenting that email as a FO casts us in a more negative light than we think is reasonable
Pierre: I feel Mozilla hasn't tried to reach out to us
Nigel: They haven't, but the onus is on us
Andreas: So should the Mozilla objection shouldn't be part of the team report
Nigel: It's important to capture, but there's no explanation about why we didn't do anything with it
Andreas: By the process though, it isn't a FO
Gary: Philippe mentioned at the last meeting, is a benefit of Mozilla FO is that they'd be excluded from the council
Nigel: The premise of Apple's and Mozilla's FO is false, because it's a requirement that doesn't exist
… So it's a misuse of process to introduce such requirements, and the Council shouldn't entertain those objections
… The final paragraph in the Analysis, the explanation omits important details
… The HRM is already Rec Track text in 3 Recs
… Important not to miss that out
… Capture that Adobe's objection was resolved and that also resolved the MovieLabs objection
Andreas: Google had a similar concern, proposed something that was adopted by the WG, and the objector was fine
Nigel: What change are you asking for?
Andreas: The text inline in the team report
Nigel: Excellent point, I didn't observe that
… Finally, our overall view is the spirit of the deleted SHOULD requirement is strengthened
Nigel: Any comments?
Atsushi: Could you include a link on the resolved objections?
Nigel: Will do, yes
Nigel: Editorial suggestions. Firstly, it would be easier to understand if there were just a single timeline presented
… Another minor one, is the group itself is referred to in 3 different ways. And include a link to TTWG participants too
… There's wording in the report that reads strangely, "one idea to revise the charter". Change to say it was a WG decision
Nigel: The last section is two process related observations
… The team's views here are unclear. Atsushi, because you're a TTWG member, our understanding is you share the group's views
… It's helpful to clarify who's views are being expressed. It also causes tensions between team and WG
Gary: This stood out to me, but I didn't have an idea to improve it
Pierre: I'd consider striking some of the text. Not sure we should put Atsushi in a difficult position
Nigel: Happy to delete it
Gary: Yes
Andreas: I ask what Atsushi thinks. I wonder if this should be mixed up with the other parts. I also am not sure if the coordinator is part of the consensus of the WG
Nigel: The team member role in W3C may be different to how it works in other SDOs
Nigel: That's everything
Andreas: The concern is this type of FOs that try to change Process through raising FOs
… It's a general concern, not about singling out individual companies
Nigel: Any other comments?
(none)
Nigel: Thank you all for going through this.
… I'll add the links, then respond to the call for comments on behalf of me and Gary
Gary: That's OK
Nigel: Anything else to discuss?
(nothing)
Meeting close
Nigel: Thank you all, let's adjourn
Nigel: [adjourns meeting]