14:01:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:01:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/27-w3process-irc
14:01:14 <plh> rrsagent, start meeting
14:01:14 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', plh.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:01:23 <plh> zakim, start meeting
14:01:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:01:24 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:01:42 <plh> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Oct/0001.html
14:02:21 <cwilso> present+
14:02:31 <plh> present+
14:02:41 <jeff> present+
14:02:49 <florian> present+
14:02:53 <TallTed> present+
14:02:56 <fantasai> present+
14:03:19 <plh> regrets+ Wendy, Sam, Tzviya, David
14:05:14 <plh> Topic: Pull Requests
14:05:31 <fantasai> Topic: Director-Free [implementing AB decisions]
14:05:37 <plh> subtopic: #664
14:05:41 <fantasai> Subtopic: Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council
14:05:43 <plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/664
14:05:53 <fantasai> github: Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council
14:05:59 <jeff> q+
14:06:01 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/633
14:06:06 <fantasai> florian: PR implements what the AB said
14:06:12 <plh> ack jeff
14:06:32 <fantasai> jeff: Firstly, agree with Florian that it's pretty minimal and consistent w/ AB
14:06:43 <fantasai> ... want to note that ability to delegate is implied by section 2.2
14:06:59 <fantasai> ... (which says CEO can delegate any responsibility)
14:07:04 <fantasai> ... but fine to clarify
14:07:13 <fantasai> florian: There was expectation of fufilling in person, so clarification is helpful
14:07:21 <fantasai> plh: Any other place where we don't want CEO to delegate?
14:07:25 <fantasai> florian: if you find one file an issue!
14:07:30 <fantasai> plh: ok, thanks for noticing that, Jeff
14:07:39 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to merge 664?
14:07:54 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR #664
14:08:02 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue #633
14:08:33 <plh> subtopic: #665
14:08:33 <fantasai> subtopic: The council may report vote totals
14:08:45 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/605
14:08:52 <fantasai> plh: Allowing the Council to report votes
14:09:11 <fantasai> plh: if there is a vote, AB decided not to impose whether to report or not the vote totals
14:09:31 <jeff> q+
14:09:44 <fantasai> fantasai: Individual positions cannot be reported, but the vote totals can be
14:09:54 <fantasai> florian: Minority report still exists (just can't be signed)
14:09:59 <plh> ack jeff
14:10:24 <fantasai> jeff: Pull request strikes out "must not report individual votes"
14:10:33 <fantasai> ... maybe forbidden by the next line?
14:10:43 <fantasai> florian: That's how I read it
14:10:58 <fantasai> ... I think it was redundant previously
14:11:08 <fantasai> ... I can also keep the "must not report individual votes"
14:11:18 <fantasai> jeff: agree implied, but whole thing is confused
14:11:25 <fantasai> ... but what about minority report?
14:11:33 <fantasai> florian: It states an opinion, but not who states it
14:11:44 <fantasai> jeff: I think you're correct it's handled by the next line...
14:12:06 <fantasai> ... maybe [wording tweak]
14:12:14 <fantasai> fantasai: My suggestion is s/point/position/
14:12:20 <fantasai> florian: suggestion taking the PR with that change
14:12:34 <TallTed> +s position
14:12:35 <jeff> +1 Elika
14:12:38 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 665 with s/point/position/
14:12:44 <TallTed> s/+s/+1/
14:13:03 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue 605
14:13:16 <fantasai> Topic: Director-free [continuation to completion]
14:13:31 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/646
14:13:38 <plh> subtopic: #646
14:13:50 <fantasai> subtopic: Replace the role of the Director in concluding AC Review
14:13:54 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/646
14:14:00 <fantasai> florian: Old process relied on Director here
14:14:04 <fantasai> ... first there was AC review
14:14:13 <fantasai> ... then Director decides to do something after the review
14:14:23 <fantasai> ... There's no actual linkage between the results of the review and what the Director does
14:14:37 <fantasai> ... You'd expect that Director would try to reflect consensus, but this was not required
14:14:53 <fantasai> florian: There was also issue that Director could make editorial changes without even announcing the changes
14:15:02 <fantasai> ... sure, reasonable to change; but shouldn't be allowed to change it secretly
14:15:21 <fantasai> florian: So now if go through AC Review and AC says yes, expected to adopt
14:15:26 <fantasai> ... if objections, goes to Council ...
14:15:41 <fantasai> ... and added allowances for edits, with appropriate notifications etc.
14:15:57 <fantasai> florian: basically encodes existing practice, which is important now that we don't have a Director
14:16:02 <fantasai> plh: Do we have a link to the guidebook?
14:16:07 <fantasai> florian: Various places, but not here specifically
14:16:16 <fantasai> plh: When adopting proposal with substantial changes [reads]
14:16:23 <fantasai> ... we do have specific mailing lists that we copy
14:16:31 <fantasai> ... maybe worth adding a link to the proper subpart of the guide?
14:16:40 <fantasai> florian: I think we could do that in a separate PR
14:16:51 <fantasai> ... this has been up for review for awhile, let's merge and then do tweaks
14:16:53 <fantasai> plh: fair enough
14:17:05 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to merge 646?
14:17:17 <fantasai> florian: btw, while dsinger isn't here today, he was with us when we wrote this, and is in support
14:17:39 <TallTed> +1 merge
14:17:44 <fantasai> plh: I don't hear anyone asking to wait or raising objections, so shall we resolve?
14:17:45 <florian> +1
14:17:47 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 646
14:17:51 <cwilso> +1
14:18:03 <fantasai> Subtopic: Remove the Director
14:18:11 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/644
14:18:25 <fantasai> plh: So finally, after merging all the PRs from last two weeks, finally remove the definition of the Director!
14:18:36 <fantasai> plh: after that if you find the word Director, we still have a bug :)
14:18:46 <jeff> q+
14:18:58 <plh> ack jeff
14:19:17 <fantasai> jeff: 3.2.1 has a concept of Director's Decision
14:19:27 <fantasai> ... and 5.1 also have a Director Decision
14:20:57 <florian> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ac-role
14:21:15 <fantasai> [some confusion over which version of the document we're looking at]
14:22:35 <fantasai> See https://w3c.github.io/w3process/director-free/ for the fully merged version
14:24:01 <fantasai> plh: btw, can we redirect from director-free branch to the ED when we're all merged?
14:24:08 <fantasai> florian: sure I'll try to do something appropriate there
14:24:24 <fantasai> florian: After merging this PR, we have no instances of the Director in the document
14:24:51 <cwilso> +1
14:24:51 <fantasai> plh: Ok, let's merge, and if you find any instances of Director in the Process that's a bug
14:25:15 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 644
14:25:31 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify expectations about FO mitigations
14:25:40 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/659
14:25:48 <plh> subtopic: #659
14:26:16 <fantasai> subtopic: Clarify expectations about FO mitigations
14:26:23 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/659
14:26:41 <fantasai> florian: Last time we did accept PR as part of DF about FO mitigations
14:26:50 <fantasai> ... we were happy with the substance of it, but during discussion noted some editorial improvements
14:26:53 <fantasai> ... I tried to make them
14:27:00 <fantasai> ... for the ppl who reviewed this, have not found problems with this PR
14:27:09 <fantasai> ... but while reviewing this, it made Nigel notice that something else wasn't clear
14:27:20 <fantasai> ... so might have some text from last year that needs improvement
14:27:32 <fantasai> ... so I think that needs follow-up, but this PR does the job of clarifying things correctly
14:28:02 <fantasai> plh: anyone need more time?
14:28:08 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1 to merging
14:28:14 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 659
14:28:33 <fantasai> ACTION: florian to open up separate issue for Nigel's comments
14:28:58 <fantasai> Topic: Legal Entity Transition
14:29:37 <fantasai> plh: wseltzer realized we still have instances of Host and Host Institution in the Process
14:29:44 <fantasai> ... so she sent a PR to remove those
14:29:56 <fantasai> florian: I also had edits to do the exact same thing and made a PR
14:30:10 <fantasai> ... so when I pointed that, wseltzer closed hers and approved mine
14:30:17 <jeff> q+
14:30:24 <plh> ack jeff
14:30:25 <florian> q+
14:31:01 <fantasai> jeff: I think we hope that the oversight by BoD is where we hope to land
14:31:06 <fantasai> ... but we haven't finished partner negotiations
14:31:16 <fantasai> ... so ... this is what it should be
14:31:28 <fantasai> ... but I wonder if we can hold this until we sign Partner Agreements?
14:31:52 <fantasai> ... Even at MIT, we have WAI people remaining at MIT
14:32:04 <fantasai> plh: Not sure I understand, it's not about salaries
14:32:27 <fantasai> florian: If you expand the text above the PR, gives of examples of information that is oversight by Hosts, will be BoD
14:32:38 <fantasai> ... interesting question from Jeff
14:32:47 <fantasai> ... Could argue that it's indirect oversight, if it goes through a Partner
14:32:49 <fantasai> ... Wendy was fine
14:33:29 <fantasai> fantasai: [stuff]
14:33:46 <fantasai> jeff: We could say that Team oversight is job of BoD
14:34:11 <plh> ack fan
14:34:35 <plh> ack florian
14:34:36 <fantasai> fantasai: A few more instances of BoD in the document, should be cross-linked
14:34:48 <fantasai> florian: Something not changed by PR, and should be considered (is filed separately)
14:34:51 <fantasai> ... is MOUs
14:35:20 <fantasai> ... By rereading the MOU thing, it made me and a few others realize that we probably want to think about whether oversight for MOUs is with Board, with AC, with both, how do they interact
14:35:32 <fantasai> ... but there is a separate issue for that
14:35:40 <fantasai> ... (this is in reference to nearby text)
14:36:15 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/670
14:36:25 <fantasai> florian: I didn't quite get the exact wording for jeff's proposal
14:36:39 <fantasai> jeff: Something like Team oversight is provided by the Board and is not subject to Process
14:36:56 <fantasai> florian: Can we say "Team oversight, budgeting, and other business decisions" to give some examples without being too vague?
14:37:00 <fantasai> jeff: I'm ok with that
14:37:12 <fantasai> plh: Florian, want to take an action to edit?
14:37:30 <fantasai> florian: I'd be happy to take the requested edits and merge, or can bring back to the next call if you feel necessary (but I don't )
14:37:34 <fantasai> plh: any objections?
14:37:50 <jeff> q+
14:38:04 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking
14:38:05 <plh> ack jeff
14:38:19 <fantasai> jeff: Not on first part about Team being part of Bod, but on the second changing the definition of MOU
14:38:26 <fantasai> ... want to share some discomfort
14:38:46 <fantasai> ... I had hoped this whole thing about MOU, could delay that for a few months or years for the Board and the AB and Process to figure out who owns MOUs
14:39:01 <fantasai> ... but I just realized, that the literal interpretation of text (both old and new)
14:39:11 <fantasai> ... means that the Partner Agreements are MOUs, and subject to AC review
14:39:21 <fantasai> florian: I share your discomfort, and that's why I filed 670
14:39:33 <fantasai> ... but as you note, this is relevant to both old and new text
14:39:51 <fantasai> ... so [missed]
14:40:07 <fantasai> fantasai: why not replace "Host" with "Partner" here? (not that 670 shouldn't also be addressed)
14:40:20 <fantasai> jeff: Do the Partner Agreements need to go through AC Review?
14:41:42 <jeff> q+
14:41:46 <florian> q+
14:41:49 <fantasai> fantasai: So I think jeff is right, and we should instead of dropping the text about the Hosts, replace it with text about agreements with the Partners
14:42:07 <fantasai> plh: would that work?
14:42:10 <fantasai> jeff: I think that's fine
14:42:19 <fantasai> ... I'm less concerned about the Process document and more about the Partner agreement
14:42:29 <plh> ack jeff
14:42:33 <plh> q+
14:42:33 <fantasai> ... I think fantasai's idea is elegant way to address the Partner Agreements
14:42:59 <fantasai> ... I think it might be interesting if the AB can rule that in the current Process document, that the Partner Agreements are agreements between Hosts under the current Process
14:43:10 <fantasai> ... which avoids them being subject to the Process's AC Review this year
14:43:19 <plh> ack florian
14:43:24 <fantasai> florian: I want to agree with Jeff and go further
14:43:36 <fantasai> ... fantasai's proposal is interesting, but won't help with upcoming Partner Agreements
14:43:44 <fantasai> ... it'll only affect next year
14:44:02 <fantasai> ... current Process says agreement between W3C and Hosts is not an MOU, and they will be signed with the current Hosts
14:44:09 <fantasai> ... not a Hosting Agreement, but it's an agreement with the Host
14:44:16 <cwilso> +1
14:44:19 <fantasai> ... so it's not an MOU, and doesn't need AC Review
14:44:27 <fantasai> florian: If we insert Partner here, need a definition
14:44:36 <fantasai> ... so either need to define it here, or normatively reference the Bylaws
14:44:41 <fantasai> ... I would like to keep the coupling light
14:44:49 <fantasai> ... so I wouldn't want to jump into fantasai's suggestion right now
14:44:53 <plh> ack plh
14:44:59 <fantasai> plh: I think the Partner Agreements are outside the scope of the Process
14:45:08 <fantasai> ... this section was about MOUs that have impacts on technical work
14:45:15 <fantasai> ... that's why we want them to have AC Review
14:45:26 <jeff> q+ to agree with PLH
14:45:27 <fantasai> ... Partner Agreements is really only a Board-level thing
14:45:32 <fantasai> ... to me it's outside the scope
14:45:33 <plh> ack fan
14:45:56 <plh> fantasai: it's worth making it clear that partner agreements are outside the scope
14:46:05 <florian> fantasai: I think it's worth making that fix, so that we're clear for next that Partner agreements are not in scope just like host agreements weren't
14:46:07 <plh> ... I'm not concerned about the reference to Partner
14:46:15 <plh> ack jeff
14:46:15 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to agree with PLH
14:46:22 <fantasai> jeff: I like plh's observation, completely correct, and maybe don't need to make any change
14:46:32 <fantasai> ... first line of the section, the CEO may negotiate an MOU
14:46:45 <fantasai> ... so this whole section is about agreements negotiated by the Director/CEO
14:46:51 <fantasai> ... not about agreements negotiated by the Board
14:46:58 <fantasai> ... so we don't need to worry about that
14:47:33 <fantasai> plh: I heard fantasai want to include a mention of Partners, florian saying he doesn't want it, and jeff said he's fine as-is because already out of scope
14:47:50 <fantasai> florian: wseltzer approved this PR
14:47:56 <fantasai> plh: fantasai, can you live with it?
14:48:07 <fantasai> fantasai: yeah, can file follow-up
14:48:26 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking
14:48:51 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Close
14:49:18 <fantasai> florian: This is a whole pile of issues, a bunch of them dsinger, fantasai, and me confirmed that they're addressed by the things we've merged
14:49:24 <fantasai> ... so by my read, all these things can be closed
14:49:35 <fantasai> ... there's a couple that had subtopics which should be filed separately, and were filed separatley
14:49:40 <fantasai> ... but by my read we can close all of this
14:49:48 <fantasai> ... so when we ask ppl to review, they will not need to read stale issues
14:50:32 <fantasai> fantasai: [stuff]
14:50:55 <fantasai> florian: I think we can close without prejudice -- if anyone thinks we should reopen, can reopen
14:51:13 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to closing all the issues in the first set, or do ppl want more time?
14:51:30 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close all issues addressed by adopting Director-free/Council PRs
14:51:44 <fantasai> plh: Second one is not Director-free, it's about substantive changes to charters etc.
14:51:55 <fantasai> ... any objections to closing that issue as well?
14:52:00 <florian> s/[stuff]/would prefer to close them all, the've been on the agenda for like a month, and each have a comment sumarizing the status and saying why it's fine to close, staying without push back/
14:52:10 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue 28
14:52:14 <fantasai> Topic: Next Steps
14:52:22 <plh> ack fan
14:52:47 <jeff> q+
14:52:52 <plh> fantasai: I suggest that we settle the pull requests and send the process to the AB to review for Director-Free
14:52:54 <florian> fantasai: my suggestion for next steps is that we settle the PR and give florian time to clean up, then send to AB for review.
14:53:07 <plh> ... and send it to AC informal review
14:53:08 <florian> fantasai: also maybe sent to AC for review, (not final review)
14:53:15 <florian> q+
14:53:27 <plh> ack jeff
14:53:29 <fantasai> plh: so start informal review, but not formal review
14:53:41 <fantasai> jeff: I think it might also be interesting, as a courtesy, for the chairs to send a copy to the Director
14:53:55 <fantasai> ... I suspect he will break out the champagne, but seems right thing to do
14:54:04 <fantasai> plh: I don't think we need to send to BoD
14:54:07 <fantasai> jeff: No
14:54:14 <fantasai> jeff: It will be hard to keep the firewall, we should do what we can
14:54:15 <plh> ack florian
14:54:24 <fantasai> florian: I support doing this, I want a little bit of time to make sure I merged everything correctly
14:54:32 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
14:54:32 <fantasai> ... also want to make the Changes section up to date
14:54:37 <fantasai> ... so just needs a few days
14:54:43 <fantasai> ... so give me a few days to clean things up
14:55:13 <fantasai> fantasai: I can work on the draft to the AC
14:55:26 <fantasai> ... can send to Jeff for review, anyone else?
14:55:41 <fantasai> plh: ac-member or ac-forum?
14:55:50 <fantasai> florian: It's informal, so ac-forum
14:55:57 <fantasai> plh: I'll check with Comm
14:56:03 <fantasai> florian: It's not about a vote, it's about making noise
14:56:23 <fantasai> plh: so then fantasai and I need to discuss what we do in 2 weeks
14:56:35 <fantasai> plh: also CC Process CG
14:56:51 <fantasai> ACTION: florian to finalize edits and Changes list
14:57:11 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai to draft and send informal review announcements to ac-forum, w3process, AB, and Director
14:57:37 <fantasai> [informal chatter about finishing the job]
14:58:10 <fantasai> [informal chatter about scheduling]
14:59:06 <fantasai> Topic: Scheduling
14:59:20 <fantasai> plh: propose to move back to Wednesday slot, now that GovTF is closed
14:59:31 <fantasai> ... I'll post to w3process
15:01:09 <plh> fantasai, please add the TAG on the list of informal reviewiers
15:01:42 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
15:01:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/27-w3process-minutes.html plh
15:41:11 <plh> Moving back our meetings to Wednesday, 10 am US/Eastern: see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Oct/0007.html
15:41:39 <plh> plh has changed the topic to: W3Process CG: Moving back our meetings to Wednesday, 10 am US/Eastern: see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Oct/0007.html
16:33:57 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
17:29:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
18:06:27 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
18:40:02 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
19:33:01 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
20:47:34 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process