– DRAFT –
Revising W3C Process Community Group

Pull Requests

Director-Free [implementing AB decisions]

#664

Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council

<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/664

github: Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/633

florian: PR implements what the AB said

jeff: Firstly, agree with Florian that it's pretty minimal and consistent w/ AB
… want to note that ability to delegate is implied by section 2.2
… (which says CEO can delegate any responsibility)
… but fine to clarify

florian: There was expectation of fufilling in person, so clarification is helpful

plh: Any other place where we don't want CEO to delegate?

florian: if you find one file an issue!

plh: ok, thanks for noticing that, Jeff

plh: Any objection to merge 664?

RESOLUTION: Merge PR #664

RESOLUTION: Close issue #633

#665

The council may report vote totals

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/605

plh: Allowing the Council to report votes

plh: if there is a vote, AB decided not to impose whether to report or not the vote totals

fantasai: Individual positions cannot be reported, but the vote totals can be

florian: Minority report still exists (just can't be signed)

jeff: Pull request strikes out "must not report individual votes"
… maybe forbidden by the next line?

florian: That's how I read it
… I think it was redundant previously
… I can also keep the "must not report individual votes"

jeff: agree implied, but whole thing is confused
… but what about minority report?

florian: It states an opinion, but not who states it

jeff: I think you're correct it's handled by the next line...
… maybe [wording tweak]

fantasai: My suggestion is s/point/position/

florian: suggestion taking the PR with that change

<TallTed> +1 position

<jeff> +1 Elika

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 665 with s/point/position/

RESOLUTION: Close issue 605

Director-free [continuation to completion]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/646

#646

Replace the role of the Director in concluding AC Review

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/646

florian: Old process relied on Director here
… first there was AC review
… then Director decides to do something after the review
… There's no actual linkage between the results of the review and what the Director does
… You'd expect that Director would try to reflect consensus, but this was not required

florian: There was also issue that Director could make editorial changes without even announcing the changes
… sure, reasonable to change; but shouldn't be allowed to change it secretly

florian: So now if go through AC Review and AC says yes, expected to adopt
… if objections, goes to Council ...
… and added allowances for edits, with appropriate notifications etc.

florian: basically encodes existing practice, which is important now that we don't have a Director

plh: Do we have a link to the guidebook?

florian: Various places, but not here specifically

plh: When adopting proposal with substantial changes [reads]
… we do have specific mailing lists that we copy
… maybe worth adding a link to the proper subpart of the guide?

florian: I think we could do that in a separate PR
… this has been up for review for awhile, let's merge and then do tweaks

plh: fair enough

plh: Any objection to merge 646?

florian: btw, while dsinger isn't here today, he was with us when we wrote this, and is in support

<TallTed> +1 merge

plh: I don't hear anyone asking to wait or raising objections, so shall we resolve?

<florian> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge 646

<cwilso> +1

Remove the Director

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/644

plh: So finally, after merging all the PRs from last two weeks, finally remove the definition of the Director!

plh: after that if you find the word Director, we still have a bug :)

jeff: 3.2.1 has a concept of Director's Decision
… and 5.1 also have a Director Decision

<florian> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ac-role

[some confusion over which version of the document we're looking at]

See https://w3c.github.io/w3process/director-free/ for the fully merged version

plh: btw, can we redirect from director-free branch to the ED when we're all merged?

florian: sure I'll try to do something appropriate there

florian: After merging this PR, we have no instances of the Director in the document

<cwilso> +1

plh: Ok, let's merge, and if you find any instances of Director in the Process that's a bug

RESOLUTION: Merge 644

Clarify expectations about FO mitigations

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/659

#659

Clarify expectations about FO mitigations

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/659

florian: Last time we did accept PR as part of DF about FO mitigations
… we were happy with the substance of it, but during discussion noted some editorial improvements
… I tried to make them
… for the ppl who reviewed this, have not found problems with this PR
… but while reviewing this, it made Nigel notice that something else wasn't clear
… so might have some text from last year that needs improvement
… so I think that needs follow-up, but this PR does the job of clarifying things correctly

plh: anyone need more time?

<fantasai> +1 to merging

RESOLUTION: Merge 659

ACTION: florian to open up separate issue for Nigel's comments

Legal Entity Transition

plh: wseltzer realized we still have instances of Host and Host Institution in the Process
… so she sent a PR to remove those

florian: I also had edits to do the exact same thing and made a PR
… so when I pointed that, wseltzer closed hers and approved mine

jeff: I think we hope that the oversight by BoD is where we hope to land
… but we haven't finished partner negotiations
… so ... this is what it should be
… but I wonder if we can hold this until we sign Partner Agreements?
… Even at MIT, we have WAI people remaining at MIT

plh: Not sure I understand, it's not about salaries

florian: If you expand the text above the PR, gives of examples of information that is oversight by Hosts, will be BoD
… interesting question from Jeff
… Could argue that it's indirect oversight, if it goes through a Partner
… Wendy was fine

fantasai: [stuff]

jeff: We could say that Team oversight is job of BoD

fantasai: A few more instances of BoD in the document, should be cross-linked

florian: Something not changed by PR, and should be considered (is filed separately)
… is MOUs
… 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
… but there is a separate issue for that
… (this is in reference to nearby text)

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/670

florian: I didn't quite get the exact wording for jeff's proposal

jeff: Something like Team oversight is provided by the Board and is not subject to Process

florian: Can we say "Team oversight, budgeting, and other business decisions" to give some examples without being too vague?

jeff: I'm ok with that

plh: Florian, want to take an action to edit?

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 )

plh: any objections?

PROPOSED: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking

jeff: Not on first part about Team being part of Bod, but on the second changing the definition of MOU
… want to share some discomfort
… 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
… but I just realized, that the literal interpretation of text (both old and new)
… means that the Partner Agreements are MOUs, and subject to AC review

florian: I share your discomfort, and that's why I filed 670
… but as you note, this is relevant to both old and new text
… so [missed]

fantasai: why not replace "Host" with "Partner" here? (not that 670 shouldn't also be addressed)

jeff: Do the Partner Agreements need to go through AC Review?

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

plh: would that work?

jeff: I think that's fine
… I'm less concerned about the Process document and more about the Partner agreement
… I think fantasai's idea is elegant way to address the Partner Agreements
… 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
… which avoids them being subject to the Process's AC Review this year

florian: I want to agree with Jeff and go further
… fantasai's proposal is interesting, but won't help with upcoming Partner Agreements
… it'll only affect next year
… current Process says agreement between W3C and Hosts is not an MOU, and they will be signed with the current Hosts
… not a Hosting Agreement, but it's an agreement with the Host

<cwilso> +1

florian: so it's not an MOU, and doesn't need AC Review

florian: If we insert Partner here, need a definition
… so either need to define it here, or normatively reference the Bylaws
… I would like to keep the coupling light
… so I wouldn't want to jump into fantasai's suggestion right now

plh: I think the Partner Agreements are outside the scope of the Process
… this section was about MOUs that have impacts on technical work
… that's why we want them to have AC Review
… Partner Agreements is really only a Board-level thing
… to me it's outside the scope

<plh> fantasai: it's worth making it clear that partner agreements are outside the scope

<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

<plh> ... I'm not concerned about the reference to Partner

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to agree with PLH

jeff: I like plh's observation, completely correct, and maybe don't need to make any change
… first line of the section, the CEO may negotiate an MOU
… so this whole section is about agreements negotiated by the Director/CEO
… not about agreements negotiated by the Board
… so we don't need to worry about that

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

florian: wseltzer approved this PR

plh: fantasai, can you live with it?

fantasai: yeah, can file follow-up

RESOLUTION: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking

Issues to Close

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
… so by my read, all these things can be closed
… there's a couple that had subtopics which should be filed separately, and were filed separatley
… but by my read we can close all of this
… so when we ask ppl to review, they will not need to read stale issues

fantasai: 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

florian: I think we can close without prejudice -- if anyone thinks we should reopen, can reopen

plh: Any objection to closing all the issues in the first set, or do ppl want more time?

RESOLUTION: Close all issues addressed by adopting Director-free/Council PRs

plh: Second one is not Director-free, it's about substantive changes to charters etc.
… any objections to closing that issue as well?

RESOLUTION: Close issue 28

Next Steps

<plh> fantasai: I suggest that we settle the pull requests and send the process to the AB to review for Director-Free

<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.

<plh> ... and send it to AC informal review

<florian> fantasai: also maybe sent to AC for review, (not final review)

plh: so start informal review, but not formal review

jeff: I think it might also be interesting, as a courtesy, for the chairs to send a copy to the Director
… I suspect he will break out the champagne, but seems right thing to do

plh: I don't think we need to send to BoD

jeff: No

jeff: It will be hard to keep the firewall, we should do what we can

florian: I support doing this, I want a little bit of time to make sure I merged everything correctly
… also want to make the Changes section up to date
… so just needs a few days
… so give me a few days to clean things up

fantasai: I can work on the draft to the AC
… can send to Jeff for review, anyone else?

plh: ac-member or ac-forum?

florian: It's informal, so ac-forum

plh: I'll check with Comm

florian: It's not about a vote, it's about making noise

plh: so then fantasai and I need to discuss what we do in 2 weeks

plh: also CC Process CG

ACTION: florian to finalize edits and Changes list

ACTION: fantasai to draft and send informal review announcements to ac-forum, w3process, AB, and Director

[informal chatter about finishing the job]

[informal chatter about scheduling]

Scheduling

plh: propose to move back to Wednesday slot, now that GovTF is closed
… I'll post to w3process

<plh> fantasai, please add the TAG on the list of informal reviewiers