15:11:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:11:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-w3process-irc
15:11:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:11:51 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
15:11:58 <fantasai> Topic: Administrative
15:12:15 <fantasai> [various difficulties getting started due to technical problems]
15:12:24 <fantasai> plh: I was going to switch to Zoom before this meeting, but forgot, sorry
15:12:34 <fantasai> florian: Do we have enough people to make progress?
15:12:45 <fantasai> plh: Thanks for sending review announcement, btw
15:13:01 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/ Process CG blog
15:13:07 <fantasai> plh: we should post to the blog
15:13:16 <fantasai> florian: We have an agenda, don't know if we have quorum
15:13:32 <fantasai> florian: Alternatively, some observations about Council and things we might want to think about for the future
15:13:51 <fantasai> plh: Let's switch to Council, there's too few of us for the agenda
15:13:58 <fantasai> Topic: Council Commentary
15:14:15 <fantasai> florian: 2 observations from Council, haven't filed issues yet
15:14:33 <fantasai> florian: We had a renouncement process, where ppl can say e.g. "my lawyers told menot to touch this, so I'm out"
15:14:54 <fantasai> ... then we have the dismissal process, where others can say it would be difficult to have a fair discussion with that person present, so dismissed
15:15:22 <fantasai> ... we nonetheless discover during Council that someone might have interesting things to say, but not want to vote for things
15:15:38 <fantasai> ... then I have to remind people that we're not voting, we're making consensus
15:15:46 <fantasai> ... so participating influences consensus
15:15:57 <fantasai> ... they're not disruptive, and other people didn't think it's a problem, but they want to abstain
15:16:11 <fantasai> ... We have a lot of people saying, "I'm here and I want to abstain" and that doesn't really mean anything
15:16:17 <fantasai> ... I wonder if we can solve this with a note, or in /Guide
15:16:34 <fantasai> ... saying if people think you shouldn't be dismissed, but you feel uncomfortable about it
15:16:44 <fantasai> ... you could declare that if group goes in a direction you disagree with you won't block
15:16:47 <fantasai> ... but you're there
15:17:00 <fantasai> ... so giving something such people can say about this state
15:17:13 <fantasai> ... Council is trying to go for unanimity, which is complete support without abstention
15:17:30 <fantasai> ... Sometimes person disagrees but doesn't want to sway the group
15:17:41 <fantasai> ... Something along these lines has happened a couple times
15:17:59 <fantasai> ... I think at the core, this is fine, discussions are constructive, and not conflict of interest and discussion moves forward
15:18:04 <fantasai> ... but it's a thing
15:18:17 <fantasai> plh: According to how Council makes its decision, do we say how it makes a decision?
15:18:34 <fantasai> florian: Council is trying to go for unanimous, where everybody supports and no abstention
15:18:46 <fantasai> ... if you can't do full-blown unanimity, still supposed to go for consensus
15:18:50 <fantasai> ... and if that fails, then vote
15:19:05 <fantasai> ... but supposed to aim for unanimity, which is difficult if ppl would support the decision but don't want to be seen as swaying it
15:19:20 <fantasai> plh: Should be unanimous, but may be consensus
15:19:30 <fantasai> ... disagree may write minority opinion
15:20:05 <fantasai> florian: Typically pattern is that the Council would actually reach unanimity, but within the group there are a few individuals that want to insist that they're not trying to sway the group
15:20:13 <fantasai> ... and are trying to describe that as abstaining
15:20:21 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#council-deliberations 5.6.2.5. Council Deliberations
15:20:31 <fantasai> plh: In the past we moved away from allowing people to abstain, if you're on the Council you should have an opinion
15:20:46 <fantasai> florian: I think they're trying to say, I have an opinion, but if group wants to go a different way, I don't want to block
15:21:14 <fantasai> plh: That's kinda like abstain?
15:21:17 <fantasai> florian: kinda, but not really?
15:21:32 <fantasai> plh: People choose to not influence decision
15:21:41 <fantasai> florian: If you don't attend call, not influence decision
15:21:58 <fantasai> plh: When issue is decision, you might know that there was some disagreement, the Council can report that
15:22:23 <fantasai> ... vs abstaining
15:22:34 <fantasai> florian: Might be that some people disagreed mildly, but not strongly enough to prevent consensus
15:22:45 <fantasai> plh: I don't see how to address it
15:23:03 <fantasai> florian: My advice would be, whether it goes in a Note or /Guide, is to advise people who feel this way
15:23:04 <tzviya> q+
15:23:12 <fantasai> ... to not describe their participation as abstention
15:23:29 <fantasai> ... but to simply express their opinion, and if group goes in a different way, this dislike will be known, but they will not block consensus
15:23:34 <fantasai> ... then we have consensus and not unanimity
15:23:40 <fantasai> ... and if they actually agree, then we're unanimous
15:23:53 <plh> ack tz
15:23:54 <fantasai> florian: Not speaking of specific Councils, but observing from multiple Councils
15:24:15 <fantasai> ... people who are not being forceful or disruptive, trying to express that they're abstaining, but that's not really a thing in a consensus discussion
15:24:25 <fantasai> tzviya: Because we went through so much effort to define [missed]
15:24:33 <fantasai> ... people don't want to be seen as having conflict of interest
15:24:44 <fantasai> ... so maybe at the beginning of each Council
15:24:54 <fantasai> ... maybe we should make a script for chairs about what the rules of the Council are
15:24:59 <fantasai> ... [sound muffled]
15:25:08 <fantasai> ... Have a checklist of items for Councils
15:25:18 <fantasai> plh: Wrt Timed Text council
15:25:26 <fantasai> ... need for a guidebook for Council itself, for how to run it
15:25:39 <fantasai> ... btw, Ralph stepped down as Team Contact for Council
15:25:43 <fantasai> ... so Yves stepped up
15:25:54 <fantasai> ... I spoke with Yves about this, we have ppl who step into role of chair and have no idea what to do
15:26:00 <fantasai> ... and no documentation for what you do
15:26:07 <fantasai> ... including remimding ppl of rules of council
15:26:17 <tzviya> q-
15:26:35 <fantasai> florian: Jeff wrote a piece of feedback a long time ago, and while I dsagree with a few pieces of it, most of it would make a really good /Guide text for the Council
15:26:41 <fantasai> tzviya: I think we need to keep it very very brief
15:26:52 <fantasai> ... I think we've been very successful with the Councils
15:27:12 <fantasai> ... We've had 4 chairs the past year
15:27:20 <fantasai> ... each has their own style of chairing
15:27:26 <fantasai> ... some behind the scenes work
15:27:48 <fantasai> ... actual chairing part we're falling into a cadence, don't need extensive documentation
15:28:00 <fantasai> ... but I think we should write a very short document
15:28:05 <plh> ack fantasai
15:28:19 <plh> fantasai: +1 to Florian on starting from Jeff's document
15:28:50 <plh> ... we need an explainer of the Council
15:29:20 <fantasai> s/we need an/it is a great/
15:29:41 <fantasai> ... helpful to Council members and people outside it, to understand what the Council is and how it operates
15:29:45 <plh> ... for council participants but also to explain to the outside
15:29:47 <fantasai> ... it's not a checklist for the chair
15:30:03 <fantasai> florian: Helps for how to think about the Council if you're on it, and also if you're external to it
15:30:17 <fantasai> ... I think tzviya's suggestion is a quick start guide
15:30:33 <fantasai> ... if you're running the council, this is how you do it
15:30:36 <fantasai> ... so I think we need both
15:30:52 <fantasai> florian: A few times in Councils where people wondered about precedent
15:30:55 <fantasai> ... It could mean 2 things
15:31:12 <fantasai> ... 1) As we accumulate a body of Council reports, people have expectations gained from experience
15:31:21 <fantasai> ... build up knowledge, not enforceable precedent
15:31:41 <fantasai> ... 2) Do we have enforceable precedent? In which if same thing happens, decision is essentially automatic
15:31:59 <tzviya> q+
15:32:04 <fantasai> ... But if each case is unique, who decides whether the precedent applies
15:32:18 <fantasai> ... But people wonder, can we extract an abstract rule from this Council for next time
15:32:19 <plh> ack tzviya
15:32:21 <plh> q+
15:32:34 <fantasai> tzviya: I mentioned a to-do list for the chairs
15:32:50 <fantasai> tzviya: For precedent, the way I expect is that we set up an archive
15:33:02 <fantasai> ... but we don't know what precedent applies when we hear the case
15:33:05 <fantasai> ... but we can refer to it if we want
15:33:12 <fantasai> ... and we can talk about the Council decision [missed]
15:33:26 <fantasai> ... But I don't think that any two cases are so exactly the same that we can automatically apply the decision
15:33:38 <fantasai> ... but having an archive makes it easy to point to things
15:33:52 <fantasai> ... and even if not identical, we have the reference, and can say here's how it's similar and here's how it's different
15:33:59 <florian> q+
15:33:59 <fantasai> ... we need to confront the complications
15:34:01 <plh> ack fantasai
15:34:24 <fantasai> fantasai: Just wanted to say I think having binding precedence doesn't make sense
15:34:29 <fantasai> ... and archive to refer to does make sense
15:34:31 <fantasai> plh: +1
15:34:47 <fantasai> plh: also Web moves fast, a decision made e.g. 10 years ago might not apply today
15:35:14 <fantasai> ... the platform changes, the community changes, the same decision might not apply even if it's the same problem
15:35:38 <fantasai> ... if the Council things nothing changed and nothing is necesary to figure out, can decide to adopt the precedent and short-circuit the discussion
15:35:44 <fantasai> ... and Team can recommend that path to the Council if they want to
15:36:05 <fantasai> ... What's interesting with Devices and Sensors is that it refers to the first Council's decision
15:36:23 <fantasai> ... so parts of that, how did they approach the former decision and how much did it count in the new one?
15:36:32 <plh> ack plh
15:36:35 <plh> ack flo
15:36:35 <fantasai> florian: When we're done, I'll report back about that
15:36:47 <fantasai> florian: I agree, I raised this point because I hear it coming back
15:36:53 <fantasai> ... but I agree with everyone here
15:37:07 <fantasai> ... If Council later wants a rule in the Process, can ask for it later
15:37:14 <fantasai> florian: Already require archive
15:37:30 <fantasai> ... [describes confidentiality rules applying to FOs and Council decisions]
15:37:38 <fantasai> ... We need to be careful, but I don't think there's any blocker about this
15:37:50 <fantasai> ... Proceedings of Council is different, but the report is meant to be published
15:37:54 <fantasai> tzviya: [missed]
15:38:06 <fantasai> florian: we need to maintain them, but the question is who gets to access them?
15:38:17 <fantasai> plh: We are accumulating records of confidential conversations on our MLs
15:38:31 <fantasai> ... outside the participants of that particular Council, can a future Council access those materials?
15:38:43 <fantasai> ... might see a case for releasing that information to future Councils
15:40:08 <plh> q?
15:40:48 <plh> tzviya: in the councils so far, assumption has been that the minutes would be confidential
15:41:23 <plh> plh: at the moment, it's to clear that they are
15:42:30 <plh> fantasai: it would require a decision of a future concil to unlock some past minutes of a couincil
15:42:31 <pal> q+
15:42:41 <plh> plh: and we don't require minutes of present councils
15:43:06 <pal> q-
15:43:24 <fantasai> florian: Agree, and I think we might want to address this question soon, while we still are in contact with the relevant people
15:43:54 <fantasai> fantasai: I think if we want to allow access to past Council records, it would need to be by a decision of a Council to access the specific records of a specific previous Council
15:44:05 <fantasai> ... shouldn't be that a Council member can access previous council records on their own
15:44:17 <fantasai> plh: that raises question of should we require minutes of the Council proceedings
15:44:31 <fantasai> [some discussion]
15:44:56 <fantasai> plh: When dismissal process is started, these are the potential participants, send us dismissal reasons - is this when we lock the compositionf Council
15:45:02 <fantasai> ... or is it after dismissal process is ended?
15:45:11 <fantasai> florian: Question is what happens if there's an election in between?
15:45:22 <fantasai> tzviya: [something missed]
15:45:51 <fantasai> plh: Chair of Council can invite anyone they want, but the question is who is a part of the Council
15:46:07 <fantasai> florian: I think the earlier of the two is appropriate
15:46:24 <fantasai> plh: So if election run the next day, new members would not be part of Council
15:46:27 <tzviya> s/[something missed]/in the past we did it for time of poll to AC
15:46:27 <fantasai> florian: Yes
15:46:38 <fantasai> florian: Once we've launched the Council process, you don't change membership of Council
15:46:41 <fantasai> tzviya: +1
15:46:43 <fantasai> fantasai: +1
15:47:08 <fantasai> florian: We already have the idea of having a stable set of people, we might want to clarify exactly when that's locked so there's no doubt
15:47:15 <fantasai> plh: I'll raise an issue
15:47:34 <fantasai> plh: Next thing is, 2 chairs of Council emailed staff asking for clarifications about the reports, which made me uncomfortable
15:47:53 <fantasai> ... because could be a way for staff to communicate to subset of the Council, rather than entire Council
15:48:13 <fantasai> ... I think when Team communicates with Council, unless confidential for some reason, should be accessible to Council and to the parties
15:48:24 <fantasai> ... I'm not sure we need to document that
15:48:30 <fantasai> florian: I think I agree with one part but not other
15:48:39 <fantasai> ... I think making sure you provide information to entire Council is relevant
15:48:54 <fantasai> ... to some degree can just trust chairs, but maybe not and maybe any info should be equally distributed
15:49:03 <fantasai> ... as for informing parties, I would make SHOULD rather than MUST
15:49:13 <fantasai> ... it's very close to MUST, it's same as MUST unless there's a good reason
15:49:35 <fantasai> ... but Council cases could be complicated if we assume there's a technical dispute entangled with a harassment problem, maybe we don't share some of the information with the harasser
15:49:39 <fantasai> ... so SHOULD not MUST
15:50:02 <fantasai> plh: Agree, in one case there was one piece of information (undisclosed organization) that could not be shared with AC e.g.
15:50:11 <fantasai> ... so perfectly reasonable to have confidential information
15:50:36 <fantasai> ... But in this case chair asked for a summary of the WG resolution, but that would be awkward if not shared with the WG
15:50:38 <tzviya> q+
15:50:43 <florian> q+
15:50:47 <plh> ack tz
15:50:51 <fantasai> ... In this case was able to avoid because this information was in the Team Report, so just referred to that
15:50:56 <fantasai> tzviya: I think we don't need to document [missed]
15:51:24 <plh> ack fl
15:52:14 <plh> florian: partly maybe, the reasons was for the Chairs to do this was a sens of urgency
15:53:38 <plh> ... if we weren't that pressed, we would have done otherwise
15:56:21 <florian> Possible start for the guide, mentioned earlier, from Jeff: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/blob/master/documents/FormalObjectionCouncilGuide.md
15:57:52 <florian> The "burden of proof" and "light tough" sections seems inapropriate to me, and should probably be removed. Maybe some others. But many parts seemed very useful.
15:59:17 <florian> Tzviya: the fairness section has issues too
16:14:51 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
16:59:59 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
18:02:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
19:04:10 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
20:47:37 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
22:11:44 <github-bot> github-bot has joined #w3process