11 January 2023


cwilso, dsinger, fantasai, florian, joshcohen, plemieux, plh, tallted, tzviya

Meeting minutes


plh: Looking at maybe 4 weeks from now deciding to send Process to AB
… so ideally would merge last PR in 2 weeks?
… and would give everyone 2 weeks advance notice to review
… and then we'd send it to AB, earliest would be mid-February

florian: I think that's not too off and we can try for that
… but I think we might run into things and delay a meeting or two
… but roughly should aim for what you're saying

plh: If we find editorial issues, I don't think we should block on that to send to AB
… only if we have something substantive we need to discuss
… also expect the AB, once they start reviewing Process, they will find issues as well
… we'll keep working on it and squeeze issues

florian: Kindof agree, but also I think we should raise expectation in AB
… when we send it to AB, it's not time to start, it's time to finish
… This is not a "please start", this is a "please finish"

plh: Don't control the AB..
… did ask the candidates if they read the Process, to prompt their engagement

cwilso: I think the special election notwithstanding
… Looking at the ppl currently remaining on the AB
… Process CG already sent a review request
… do that again, with "we'll ask you to vote on this soon"
… Probably Tzviya and I are the only ones who will deep dive on it besides the editors
… So I'm not overly worried
… but suggest sending out to candidates

fantasai: We can send to AB for their review even if we didn't fix every single thing, we just send them a changelog of the few things remaining
… so after we're done with most things, we can send for their review

plh: Let's wait until at least the new candidates are elected


cwilso: I should take this as an action item, to include in the "welcome to the AB" email


Josh Cohen says hi

Josh: Used to work at MSFT for about 13 years
… I was the leader of the standards initiative for W?? management, which is what powershell uses
… Windows uses for ??? protocols
… Vice Chair of Board and process there, and lead for standardization at ISO JTC1
… Way back when I started my career in early 90s, in the HTTP WG
… Became a software engineer at Netscape working on proxy
… So always involved in standardization wherever I went
… Checking back into this world
… feel free to ask me any questions

cwilso: I'm the only one everyone knows! Josh and I used to work together
… Chris Wilson, work for Google, hang out in Process CG to move things along

florian: Florian Rivoal, independent consultant, working i nstandards particularly CSS
… member of Advisory Board, and co-editor of this Process document
… and I used to be at Opera

<plh> fantasai: [Elika introduces herself]

dsinger: Dave Singer, Apple
… used to chair Process CG and used to be on AB, but not anymore
… chair of the Board of Directors
… care about processes and stuff, working with W3C for 15-20 years now

TallTed: With ?? for 23 years, involved in W3C for about that long
… because I'm in the trenches, have a different perspective than others in this group, sometimes different perspective
… involved in RDF, linked data, identity management, etc.

palemieux: Pierre Anthony, co-chair Color CG, and editor of subtitling and captioning spec in Timed Text WG

plh: I'm Philippe Le Hegaret, other co-chair of Process CG
… part of W3C Staff, nowadays responsible for WGs, startegy, and other things in the Consortium
… we are always looking for new participants, anything I can do to help get you on board, ask me
… also happy to set up a separate time to chat

Pull Requests

Clarify CR review period

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/691

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/637

florian: We have some references to the "candidate recommendation review period"
… and it was not clear what this meant
… was it the entire time the spec is in CR, or was it the dedicated review period that is mentioned in the SOTD
… We previously concluded it's that specific reserved time period
… so the PR adds a definition there, and then cross-links to it
… so I think this is an uneventful PR based on discussion last time

+1 to merging

plh: Any objections to merge?


Closure of a Group

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/696

florian: Addresses two issues



florian: This is about closure of a group
… used to be only Director can close
… changed to the Team
… Discussed making more balanced by allowing AB and TAG to close as well
… while we were discussing, Nigel noticed an earlier intended refactoring had modified the text beyond what we meant to modify
… Ability of Team/Director used to not only be rare in practice, but also was constrained under the situations it could happen in
… so the new PR restores the old text
… [summarizes PR]
… so i think the PR integrates all we have been saying in the related issues
… if it looks good, we can merge

+1 to merging

TallTed: minor fix in the PR

florian: hadn't seen, yes, should take that modification

plh: Objections to merging with the fix from TallTed ?

RESOLUTION: Merge #696 with the edit from TallTed

<cwilso> +1 to merging

Member-visible AC Appeals

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/603


florian: We wanted to add language to encourage members to share their appeal request with membership, not just the Team
… agreed on concept last time, but were blocked on specific phrasing
… because the process does not explicitly refer to AC Forum, it is abstract about how you are supposed to contact the AC
… so wanted to rephrase to make it clearer how to contact this
… solved this by having plh write a /Guide article, which gives an email template and says where to send it

<plh> Appealing a W3C Decision

florian: so now the Process itself, we can just link to the Guide

<cwilso> +1 to merging

florian: and just say who you're supposed to contact, and point to /Guide for how

plh: Objections to merge?

RESOLUTION: Merge #676

Issue Triage

plh: We have a bunch of issues we said we'd address in 2023 that are still open
… question I have here is, do we still want to address them or defer them?
… also if there's an issue not on the list we should add to the list


plh: Will go through the list and ask if we need to keep or defer

plh: 670

fantasai: keep

florian: Not about DF, but related to LE, and need to clean it up

dsinger: only thing I think we should do now is to disentangle legal contracts from true memorandum of understanding
… "we understand you're doing this" and "we understand you're doing that"
… but contracts become a Board purview question
… right now MOU includes formal legal contracts

<plh> MoU

dsinger: need some clean up

fantasai: We are just triaging, not solving the problem. We should address this for 2023

plh: 661, editorial

plh: 650
… I think this one stays on our list, don't think we've quite finished the conversation

cwilso: not sure we will finish it, but don't object to keeping on the list for now

plh: 580, goes along with 650, so keep it?


plh: 574, we were waiting on Wendy?

fantasai: I can take it to PSIG

florian: I don't know that we have to solve it, but we should try

[florian summarizes the state]

plh: 560

fantasai: related to 580

plh: 522, I think not P2023

fantasai: defer

tzviya: this is, AB works on it for the next year

plh: 518
… why is this under the Process?

florian: interaction of Process and Patent Policy
… and Patent Policy doesn't have a repo. probably should defer

florian: Btw, we don't have a repo for Patent Policy
… the source for Patent Policy is on my computer and on my computer only
… would be nice to have a repo

dsinger: The lawyers don't really want a repo, or visible issues

florian: And they also told us it was impossible to revise the Patent Policy, but we did it

florian: but anyway that's an AB/PSIG topic

plh: 464

fantasai: it would be nice to solve, pretty straightforward

plh: 425

fantasai: defer

florian: defer

plh: defer

plh: 373

florian: if we solve it great, if not not a significant problem for this cycle

plh: Once we send to AC for review, we'll need to triage for 2024

plh: 328, I believe same bucket as 580 etc.
… so keep that one

plh: 281

florian: I thought we had solve this
… I'd need more than a minute because it's long, but I suspect we already solved it
… probably ready to close

plh: 167
… same bucket as 422, not for P2023, so let's defer

florian: agreed

plh: That's it for issues marked for P2023
… if you see any issue that *should* be marked for P2023, speak up

joshco: Deferring "define independent"?
… that means to 2024? or different group?

plh: for next release if it gets ready in time
… the Advisory Board has set this issue as a priority for this next cycle
… so in terms of expectations, we'll let the AB first have the conversations on that one
… be aware, btw, there was a TPAC breakout last year on this topic
… happy to send you minutes if you want
… but conclusion has been so far, AB needs to dive into it
… can't solve in CG ourselves

tzviya: we'll open a public discussion

florian: For all these issues we defer, it's just about this cycle of the process
… we're focused on removing the dependency of TimBL and adjusting for existing of the legal entity
… fold in anything that we can incidentally, but otherwise defer to next cycle

[discussion of tags]

[discussion of issue management]

florian: What remains complicated, and we may not solve it completely this cycle, is charter creation

plh: Right now W3C puts a lot of power on the Team to propose charters to the AC
… we need more checks and balances
… even though currently AC has to review, only check is formal objection
… that's the part that we need to look at
… as an aside, I'm looking into revamping a bit our strategy at at Team level
… and one of my goals has been how to involve the community a bit more
… Even though a lot of the work is in public, hard to find

[back to charter creation]

plh: multiple issues 650, 560, 580,
… some of this will go into Process, some into /Guide
… /Guide helps us document how we work without hard coding into a Process that is difficult to change
… /Guide is responsibility of the Team, but working with the Process CG

[discussion of work mechanics]

plh: Looks like we're done for today
… next meeting will be in 2 weeks

<florian> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/drafts/

<florian> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#changes

<plh> [adjourned]

Meeting closed.

Summary of resolutions

  1. Merge PR #691
  2. Merge #696 with the edit from TallTed
  3. Merge #676
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 197 (Tue Nov 8 15:42:48 2022 UTC).


Succeeded: s/upcoming work/work mechanics/

Succeeded: s/adjounred/adjourned/

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: fantasai

Maybe present: Josh, joshco, palemieux

All speakers: cwilso, dsinger, fantasai, florian, Josh, joshco, palemieux, plh, TallTed, tzviya

Active on IRC: cwilso, dsinger, fantasai, florian, joshco, plh, tzviya