14:59:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:59:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-w3process-irc
15:00:00 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:00:01 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
15:03:12 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Nov/0003.html
15:03:18 <plh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Nov/0003.html
15:06:25 <cwilso> present+
15:06:38 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
15:07:16 <fantasai> chair: plh
15:07:26 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests
15:07:33 <cwilso> q+
15:07:40 <fantasai> plh: Only PR to review is AB-BoD liaison
15:07:52 <fantasai> florian: We're aware that AB is supposed to pick people and send them to the Board and the Board invites them
15:07:59 <plh> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/668
15:08:03 <fantasai> ... Process is not in charge of the Board, but can tell AB how to do its job
15:08:07 <fantasai> ... so that's what the PR does
15:08:18 <fantasai> ... an earlier phrasing of this was more forceful, it is now rephrased
15:08:21 <plh> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/668
15:08:31 <plh> q+
15:08:37 <fantasai> ... AB picks some people, and expects the Board to invite them
15:08:39 <plh> ack cw
15:08:49 <fantasai> cwilso: I read through this and I'm totally fine with committing this as-is
15:08:53 <fantasai> ... I think it's good to get it on deck
15:09:12 <fantasai> ... it doesn't say anything about how AB will appoint, and I'm frankly fine with anything from "chairs just pick" to whatever process
15:09:18 <fantasai> ... but at some point we'll have to say how those are chosen
15:09:26 <fantasai> florian: My guess is as a first pass, let chairs figure it out
15:09:34 <fantasai> ... and if we want to enshrine that, we can do that
15:09:36 <plh> ack plh
15:09:38 <fantasai> ... but at this point, chairs figure out process
15:09:55 <fantasai> cwilso: I will say that's what's implied, since the chair's assess the AB's consensus
15:10:06 <fantasai> plh: fine with PR
15:10:14 <fantasai> ... one thing I'm a little uncomfortable is the number 2
15:10:26 <fantasai> ... isn't it up to the Board to decide how many people they want to accept?
15:10:44 <fantasai> florian: number 2 is coming from a resolution of the Governance TF, which was forwarded to Steering Committee, who approved it
15:10:51 <fantasai> ... in other words, the exact same place the Bylaws came from
15:11:31 <fantasai> florian: The number of people AB will send is 2, Board is expected to accept 2 (but could in theory accept 1 or 7 or whatever)
15:12:01 <fantasai> florian: this is not trying to set up an expectation, it's trying to fulfill an expectation that was set up by the Governance TF and SC
15:12:13 <fantasai> plh: Wish I could get +1 from david
15:12:21 <fantasai> florian: He was part of the TF that approved it
15:12:24 <fantasai> plh: Can change later on if needed
15:12:33 <fantasai> ... I can draw his attention later
15:14:51 <plh> Proposed: Merge #669
15:15:01 <fantasai> plh: Objections?
15:15:07 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #669
15:15:12 <fantasai> Topic: Issues
15:15:27 <fantasai> Subtopic: Closing Working Groups
15:15:30 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653
15:15:32 <plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653
15:15:58 <fantasai> florian: mnot noticed that there are some things that can be initiated by Team and some other people, but closing groups can only be proposed by the Team
15:16:04 <fantasai> ... either way there's an AC Review, so can't force it through
15:16:08 <fantasai> ... but who can initiate that?
15:16:19 <fantasai> florian: I opened a minimalist PR to extend it to Team or AB or TAG
15:16:32 <fantasai> ... Nigel noticed that he didn't think it was a good idea
15:16:56 <fantasai> ... I think he prefers to funnel through the Team, to avoid e.g. AB wants to close a group while TAG has it open or vice versa
15:17:00 <plh> q+
15:17:06 <fantasai> ... I think the PR is simple, but whether we want to adopt or not is open question
15:17:13 <fantasai> plh: Right now the Director can propose to close a group
15:17:34 <fantasai> ... your proposal doesn't do that in spirit of Director-free, says TAG *or* AB not TAG *and* AB
15:17:38 <fantasai> ... Council is both
15:17:40 <tzviya> q+
15:17:48 <fantasai> florian: Council is a lot more complicated than TAG+AB
15:17:49 <plh> ack plh
15:18:08 <fantasai> ... if they were doing this on their own, I'd be concerned, but they have to start an AC Review
15:18:11 <plh> ack tzviya
15:18:29 <fantasai> plh: Team doesn't get a choice, would have to start an AC Review once requested
15:18:53 <fantasai> tzviya: There's some concern that the TAG would take on more work and AB would have less work, and for things like this as well as Charter Review, room for AB and TAG to work together
15:18:58 <fantasai> ... we're already working together for Councils
15:19:07 <fantasai> ... extraordinarily hard to coordinate, coordination is half the work
15:19:12 <fantasai> ... confluence of policy and tech work
15:19:17 <fantasai> ... I think it makes sense to work together
15:19:27 <fantasai> ... I think we should do something about this, how can we get the best of both groups
15:19:35 <fantasai> florian: personally, even if it's a good idea, it's non-urgent
15:19:47 <fantasai> ... in normal circumstances, we can tell the Team and they'll listen and there's no blocking thing here
15:20:04 <fantasai> ... so in theory finding a broader way might be better, but we can defer this to next year
15:20:16 <fantasai> ... Mark raised it as part of Director-free
15:20:23 <fantasai> ... so if we're not doing this now, we need to argue with Mark
15:21:19 <florian> q+
15:21:25 <fantasai> fantasai: [...]
15:21:41 <plh> ack florian
15:21:43 <fantasai> fantasai: Could say TAG+AB, would only really be relevant when the Team disagrees
15:21:55 <tzviya> q+
15:22:05 <fantasai> florian: Situation is about forcibly closing a group that otherwise wouldn't stop on its own
15:22:08 <plh> ack tz
15:22:18 <fantasai> tzviya: I can easily see a scenario where this could happen
15:23:21 <fantasai> ... let's say a subgroup within W3C who want to specify a technology, but W3C at large wants to disassociate itself from that work
15:23:32 <fantasai> florian: Not saying there isn't a case for that, but that it would be politically interesting
15:23:49 <fantasai> plh: We always have some WGs that we wish we didn't have
15:24:29 <fantasai> ... can make case to close several groups as of today
15:25:08 <fantasai> ... but not going to
15:25:32 <tzviya> q-
15:25:33 <fantasai> florian: Back to the issue, we can  do several things
15:25:36 <fantasai> florian: a) defer
15:25:44 <fantasai> florian: b) switch to AB + TAG, if in agreement
15:25:54 <fantasai> plh: c) ask AB for feedback
15:26:05 <fantasai> plh: If we do that kind of change, we're adding more responsibility
15:26:10 <fantasai> florian: I don't expect this to be routine
15:26:24 <fantasai> ... this has been extremely rare or never happened, and I expect that to remain the case
15:26:29 <fantasai> tzviya: I would say defer
15:26:50 <fantasai> florian: Maybe defer and if mnot isn't okay with it, we work on it more?
15:27:01 <fantasai> plh: I would be happy for us to defer, not to merge
15:27:11 <fantasai> plh: objections to defer? If mnot comes back we can come back.
15:27:35 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Defer 653 for 2023, unless mnot pushes back
15:27:43 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Close
15:27:52 <fantasai> Subtopic: limiting scope of FO Council deliberations
15:28:00 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/628
15:28:17 <fantasai> plh: palemieux, you proposed this issue, where do we stand?
15:28:31 <fantasai> palemieux: unresolved, can discuss here or take it to the AC
15:29:04 <fantasai> florian: The type of changes we'd need to make to make the Council conform to what you're suggesting aren't small tweaks, they are a radical departure for how the Council is currently set up according to the AB resolutions
15:29:16 <fantasai> ... if you think that's not correct, and it's just tweaks, then maybe we're not understanding each other
15:29:36 <fantasai> palemieux: I think it's just a one-sentence change, just limit the Council
15:29:40 <wseltzer> present+
15:29:46 <fantasai> ... Council shouldn't be inventing new process
15:29:54 <fantasai> florian: It would defeat the purpose of Council
15:30:04 <fantasai> ... FOs are almost never about "this rule was violated, shut it down"
15:30:09 <fantasai> palemieux: examples?
15:30:17 <fantasai> florian: every single recent FO?
15:30:55 <fantasai> palemieux: I don't understand how a single group can invent new groups and bind members to those rules, that makes new sense
15:31:02 <fantasai> florian: I think that would make no sense, but that's not what it's doing
15:31:10 <fantasai> ... when we get to a Council, we were trying to have consensus and failed
15:31:16 <fantasai> ... default situation is, we're stuck we can do nothing
15:31:25 <fantasai> palemieux: reject the FO
15:31:43 <fantasai> florian: FO is not about "process is violated", it's a statement that "I cannot agree with this, we have no consensus"
15:31:54 <tzviya> recent Devices and Sensors charter results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results
15:32:00 <fantasai> ... the reason for my disagreement might be grounded in process, or grounded in privacy violation, or architectural decision or whatever
15:32:15 <fantasai> ... if Council cannot discuss anything other than process, then we can't resolve any FOs that are not grounded in Porcess
15:32:27 <fantasai> ... or it means that you cannot have an FO in absence of a process violation
15:32:30 <tzviya> q+
15:32:41 <fantasai> ... which would be a radical departure to what FOs have been used for historically at W3C
15:32:58 <fantasai> ... if we have privacy problems, i18n, arhitecutral, accessibilty, any of these have been justifications for FOs
15:33:11 <fantasai> palemieux: there's no more Director, so what used to work will not work in the future
15:33:14 <plh> ack tz
15:33:17 <fantasai> tzviya: That's exactly the point
15:33:23 <fantasai> ... Dropped a link to a recent FO
15:34:00 <fantasai> ... I've been observing this discussion a little remotely, but role of FO Council was created to replace the role of the Director in resolving FOs
15:34:18 <fantasai> ... see https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results
15:34:32 <fantasai> ... why are decisions about process even the discussion here, objections to charters or specs rarely have to do with Process
15:35:06 <fantasai> ... there might be notes about process, but the discussion is more about "I don't think this technology is doing X, Y, Z, not good for the world the way ti tis, not truly interoperable, violates X, Y Z"
15:35:13 <fantasai> ... far more involved than just process
15:35:25 <fantasai> palemieux: Technical decisions should be left to WGs
15:35:33 <fantasai> florian: I think the point here is that, that would be a radical change to what a Recommenation is
15:35:50 <fantasai> ... a Recommendation is not work of a WG, it's the work of the entire Consortium
15:36:05 <fantasai> palemieux: Can't have small group override experts in the WG
15:36:25 <fantasai> plh: If there is disagreement within the AC, someone has to look at the disagreement and find a way forward
15:36:40 <fantasai> palemieux: if only one AC objects, AC should be able to override them
15:36:45 <plh> ack fan
15:37:08 <plh> fantasai: it's just go as the idea that W3C has a consortium would decide by voting and W3C is not that
15:37:12 <plh> ... we work by consensus
15:37:23 <plh> ... every single FO has been handled on its own merits
15:37:53 <plh> ... it's also that if WGs can't come to consensus, they need a way to escalate
15:37:55 <tzviya> q+ to comment on "small group"
15:38:14 <florian> +1 to fantasai
15:38:18 <plh> q+ pal
15:38:22 <plh> ack tz
15:38:22 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on "small group"
15:38:30 <fantasai> tzviya: Agree with fantasai, and also want to comment on 'small group'
15:38:45 <fantasai> ... AB + TAG is 20 people, diverse group from geography, industry, etc.
15:38:54 <fantasai> ... elected by AC, it's a pretty good representation of W3C
15:38:56 <pal> pal has joined #w3process
15:39:10 <florian> q+
15:39:10 <fantasai> ... Does a pretty good job of reflecting different aspects of W3C and how decision can be made
15:39:13 <plh> ack pal
15:39:34 <fantasai> pal: Point that should not be about voting, as we discussed, the FO Council does have a voting procedure
15:39:40 <fantasai> ... it's much smaller group
15:39:53 <plh> ack flo
15:39:55 <fantasai> s/palemieux/pal/g
15:40:23 <fantasai> florian: Meta-point here, I think unless we convince pierre-anthony that his view was mistaken, which I don't think we are succeeding at, I don't think this is something we can resolve here
15:40:34 <fantasai> ... this wasn't a decision of this group, this is a decision of the AB
15:40:55 <fantasai> ... I think if you want to have this discussion, you have to have it with the AB, because this is in contradiction to what the AB is trying to do
15:41:00 <fantasai> ... we can't overturn what the AB wanted to do
15:41:00 <plh> ack fan
15:41:00 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond
15:41:24 <TallTed> present+
15:41:50 <pal> q+
15:42:32 <plh> ack pal
15:42:48 <fantasai> fantasai: Voting on the Council is a last resort
15:42:58 <fantasai> ... supposed to find consensus, and usually does
15:43:15 <fantasai> ... also Council may be smaller but it is a more balanced group, and more diverse than a WG
15:43:40 <fantasai> [discussion of deferring issue, closing, etc.]
15:43:50 <florian> q+
15:44:04 <fantasai> pal: My concern is moving technical decisions away from the technical experts
15:44:13 <fantasai> pal: I'll raise it during AC Review
15:44:27 <fantasai> ...
15:44:40 <fantasai> pal: how does this group communicate with the AB, btw?
15:44:57 <fantasai> florian: Some of the time the AB makes a resolution, this is what we want in the Proces, Process CG figure out the details
15:45:10 <fantasai> ... and sometimes Process CG says, this seems to be above our pay grade, let's ask the AB
15:45:25 <fantasai> ... and finally before sending to AC for review, we send it to AB for review
15:45:32 <fantasai> ... plus there is cross-participation in both groups
15:45:45 <fantasai> pal: if I wanted to file a minority report to the AB, what's the way to do it?
15:45:59 <fantasai> florian: AB has a Member-visible repo, can post it there
15:46:19 <fantasai> florian: Either we close this issue, or we can mark the issue as needing AB feedback
15:46:25 <fantasai> ... in either case, you're welcome to talk to AB directly
15:46:45 <fantasai> pal: Not like consensus here is to continue with the scope of FO Council as defined in the draft, just want to document my minority opinion
15:46:49 <fantasai> ... trying to find right way to do that
15:47:04 <fantasai> florian: We can close this issue as "commenter not satisfied", which will be seen in Disposition of Comments
15:47:13 <fantasai> pal: that sounds great, I'll add a last comment then with my position
15:47:14 <plh> q?
15:47:21 <plh> ack florian
15:47:27 <fantasai> florian: One thing on the record to push back on
15:47:42 <fantasai> ... notion that TAG is not technical experts... sounds like a questionable thing to me. They *are* technical experts
15:47:49 <fantasai> ... and half of Council is the TAG
15:48:04 <fantasai> plh: So proposal is to close the issue, with minority opinion of Pierre-Anthony
15:48:12 <fantasai> ... and as usual happy to open if new information
15:48:20 <fantasai> ... objections?
15:48:35 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 628 no change, flag Commenter Not Satisfied
15:48:51 <fantasai> Topic: Informal Review
15:48:56 <fantasai> plh: what's the status?
15:49:02 <fantasai> florian: I was tasked with doing changelog, and was busy and am late
15:49:12 <fantasai> ... there is a changelog, I'm just unsure it's complete
15:49:15 <fantasai> plh: eta?
15:49:24 <pal> q+
15:49:25 <fantasai> florian: [explains schedule]
15:49:42 <fantasai> plh: With Thanksgiving approaching, closer we get to end of November the less attention we get
15:49:52 <fantasai> florian: understood, can't promise this week but can do next week
15:49:54 <plh> ack pal
15:50:07 <fantasai> pal: Another administrative question, I'd like to review minutes before posted
15:50:46 <TallTed> the `s/incorrect/correct/` tool can be used immediately (if we're using the typical tooling)
15:51:04 <fantasai> florian: usually you can correct on the fly, for this group it's bene good enough, but if not you can aks the chairs to make edits
15:51:33 <fantasai> plh: I'll give you 24 hours, send me any additional corrections
15:51:51 <fantasai> ... they get generated automatically
15:52:21 <fantasai> Subtopic: Meeting Schedule
15:52:39 <fantasai> plh: two people said Wednesdays are not great, might need to rediscuss the day of the week
15:53:01 <fantasai> ... maybe make a poll?
15:53:28 <fantasai> florian: random number generator, different day each time!
15:53:52 <fantasai> fantasai: just send a poll, might as well
15:54:01 <fantasai> plh: if nothing interesting comes out of poll then we'll leave Wednesdays
15:54:09 <fantasai> Topic: Proposed to Close
15:54:19 <fantasai> s/Topic: Proposed to Close//
15:54:26 <fantasai> Subtopic: Proposal for a Directorate
15:54:30 <fantasai> florian: [summarizes issue]
15:54:36 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/457
15:55:05 <fantasai> florian: I'm not sure Mike is convinced we picked the best path, but convinced we're not going in that direction
15:55:30 <fantasai> plh: Should we flag it as commenter not satisfied?
15:55:48 <fantasai> florian: I think we need to mark differently the cases where the commenter disagrees with closing the issue
15:56:38 <fantasai> fantasai: He's not objecting, so I think we don't need to do anything special
15:56:51 <fantasai> Topic: End
15:57:17 <fantasai> [review of action items]
15:58:29 <fantasai> florian: I think we should action some combination of chairs and editors to remember why it is the PRs are different, why each one has some difference that we want to keep
15:58:39 <fantasai> ... we have a reason for not accepting wseltzer's PR, but I forget what it is
15:59:20 <fantasai> florian: When I do get to writing the changelog, do we have group clearance to immediately send the informal review request?
15:59:42 <fantasai> fantasai: We agreed that I would draft announcement, send to jeff for review, and then send it out
15:59:57 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
17:03:50 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
17:04:31 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
18:04:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
19:28:54 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
19:56:09 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
20:07:55 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process