Meeting minutes
AB Update
<fantasai> s/agendum 1 -- Documentation Preparation -- taken up [from plh]//
florian: The AB status update is linked to the DoC, but we have 4 open issues
… one is editorial, one we may defer, one is resolved by AB, and one is raised by chaals that probably we should fix
florian: The other part of update is that the AB reviewed the issues where the commenter did not agree with the resolution
… and AB confirmed the resolution despite the commenter's disagreement
florian: Other than that, no significant comments from AB
… we need to prepare the package to send to AC
… a few more issues to resolve, defer the rest, don't expect any problems
florian: Next AB meeting is April 6th
… my assumption is if we do our homework, next AB meeting will be rubber-stamp that we're done
Disposition of Comments
plh: Did you contact all commenters?
florian: yep
plh: responses?
florian: not everyone
… one marked invalid, commenter hasn't responded yet ... but commenter is Jeff
… he might not respond
… and that's for closing the issue out of scope (deferred to /Guide)
florian: then we have three rejected issues that we asked for confirmation, and haven't received any
plh: Any other questions about the DoC?
Pull Requests to Review
florian: 4th open issue is waiting for PSIG, but no answer yet from PSIG
"The W3C Council" should often be "A W3C Council"
florian: Ted correctly pointed out that we talk about "the Council", but there can be multiple councils, so should be more correct to talk about "a Council" in many cases
… PR attempts to fix this, has some review including from Ted
/github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/720///github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/720
florian: [explains the PR]
joshco_: I thought there was a standing council
florian: no, all councils are temporary, and there might be multiple existing in parallel
florian: anyway, that's the PR. If there's some debate, let's debate in GH, but otherwise that's it
plh: Any objection to merge this PR?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #719
[we interrupt this regularly-scheduled program to make a round of introductions for JenStrickland who just joined]
Ratification of TAG appointments
florian: We decided in the past that the three TAG appointees are appointed by the Team and ratified by the TAG
… mnot was concerned this would allow for too much of an insider effect
… the AB agreed, and modified to ratification of the AB and the TAG
… wording is delegated to us, and I think it does the job
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #718
florian: having received some review comments on the wording, I feel more confident that we got it right :)
Should a team-confidential formal objection lead to a team-confidential council report?
florian: Odd things about confidentiality
… a document can be public or private
… a decision about a document can be public or private
… an objection can be public or private
… and the Council report can be public or private
… and the Process text about this was a bit messy
florian: We already say that if there's a private FO about a public document, its existence needs to be made public
… the Process says the Council Report has same confidentiality as the FO, but is that the original FO or the recast FO?
… etc.
florian: so the PR tries to fix this to be clear about the required confidentiality of the Council Report
… wanted to say that the Council Report is at least as open as the documents/decisions ruled on
… but it might require citing confidential information
… so some changes
florian: lastly, there's a section that if a Council Report needs to be public, but there could be extra commentary citing confidential information, there can be a supplementary report
florian: I'm proposing to merge today with one change
… "must have same level of confidentiality" -- leave this line unchanged
… alternatively could leave it as-is
… because you can't make a public report about private facts, it's hard
<florian> Original:[=Council Reports=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> have the same level of confidentiality
<florian> as the [=Formal Objection=].
<florian> PR: [=Council Reports=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be no more confidential
<florian> than the decision or document being objected to.
<florian> Proposed: [=Council Reports=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> have the same level of confidentiality
<florian> as the decision or document being objected to.
plh: do people understnad the proposal here?
plh: I can imagine that you're objecting to proposed REC moving forward, but don't want your company name to be made public
… if Council Report needs to cite the name
florian: There's higher up in the Process, if you make a private FO about a public document
… the Team has to make it public, by restating the objection without identifying the objector
<joshco_> how about add "same level of confidentiality, or with appropriate redaction"
florian: the facts of the case would be publicly known
… though there may be confidential info
joshco_: [proposes some text]
florian: I think it's implied, but might not hurt to be explicit
plh: It's a matter of whether Team redacts the report to make it publicly consumable, or asks Council to redact it
<joshco_> "same level of confidentiality, or with confidential information redacted"
<plh> fantasai: Nigel says confidentiality is not a linear scale. but the council report should be visible to everyone who can see the formal objection.
plh: I think the original PR is correct
florian: OK
… we might consider adding a note about redaction, as joshco_ mentions
fantasai: I'm fine to add a note "The Council cannot make more public information that was confidential, see #confidentialinfosection"
plh: I don't think we need a note
… It's clear what's acceptable
… for everything else, I think we should make everything as public as possible
<florian> confidentiality https://
joshco_: There's a PR and then in your statements you said there's another part wrt confidentiality?
florian: [summarizes confidentiality levels: public, Member-only, Team-only]
… Team is able to change confidentiality levels of information by following specific process
florian: for example, can file a Team-only FO
… Team can ask to restate publicly, and can say no
… in that case the Team can restate without attribution, and might need to redact some additional info
joshco_: so maybe a note about redacted information?
fantasai: propose to accept the PR as-is
… discuss notes in GH asynchronously; if sufficiently editorial, Florian and I can just merge it
plh: Concerned the Process keeps getting longer / more complicated
… nobody can read it all
florian: Sure, but we have limited time today, so we'll have to discuss such notes in the PR to add the notes
plh: OK, any objections to merge 720 as-is?
… I'm comfortable doing it, because it doesn't change intent of the Process
+1 from me
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #720 as-is
Other Open Issues
github: w3c/
florian: we have a question about precedence among Member Agreement vs Process vs Patent Policy
… still no response from PSIG
… so at this point we defer
… it's a problem about existing text, not what we just introduced, so I'm comfortable deferring
[clarified that this goes into the DoC as Deferred due to lack of PSIG response for multiple months]
Document Preparation
florian: we have draft Process, changes list, DoC, and a draft Council Guide
… first question is, is anything here inappropriate or needs fixing
… but also, we might need to draft some explanatory material, so what else do we need?
plh: I think explanatory material needs to be there
… following up on the informal meeting with cpn and nigel, we spent an hour explaining some of the design decisions
… none of the documents will provide that explanation
… so I expect this to come back to us, and I'm just wondering what can we do to try to explain our choices as much as possible
… knowing things are not perfect
florian: to some degree, that's explained in the Council Guide article
… do you think we need more than that?
… I thought we'd need a bit of an introduction
… rather than detailed explanation of the choices
plh: mainly about the dismissal rules
florian: I agree, that's probably the most contentious bit
plh: do we have explanation of why we ended up where we are in the Guide?
… btw Yves is working on that
… it will move into public /Guide
<joshco_> is there a link to the council guide draft?
<plh> fantasai: we'll need an FAQ.
yes, see https://
… why did we do it this way
… so should go through changes, and write a blurb about each item that seems non-obvious or contentious
<plh> ... on recusal
<plh> ... on TAG appointment
florian: do we need one about why a Council at all?
<joshco_> oh i can't see that link since not a member
fantasai: might start with that
florian: Also clarify that it's not perfect, but that we need to move forward
… so object if you think it's wrong / worse than previous Process, not if you think it's imperfect
plh: that should be part of the AC announcement
plh: I think FAQ should be separate document, and link it from the announcement
fantasai: So we need an FAQ and an announcement
plh: Team can draft
florian: I would like to draft, actually.
… some concern about wording and addressing potential concerns
florian: also chartering
plh: Might be some open issues to highlight, to show that this Process is not solving those issues
… at least one about chartering
florian: OK, I think we know enough to get started
… might need to touch base once we have drafts
… is the assumption that the usual suspects will be assigned to this task?
plh: In terms of what we need to prepare for deploying the process
… I think we don't have much to do, most of it is about the Council, and Yves is already working on it
[discussion about tooling]
florian: Don't overthink it. It's an HTML page with a list.
plh: need to overthink a little bit, depending on whether you're a Member or public, level of info will be different
<TallTed> (top of the hour ... have to jump to next)
florian: I think you're overthinking
… you need an index that lists Team Reports and Council Reports and that's it
plh: my hope is once P2023 comes into effect, it'll be ready
florian: I think we need that page to pass AC review
… if AC cannot see the quality of the Council Reports, they will not have confidence in the Council
ACTION: florian and fantasai: draft announcement and FAQ
ACTION: plh: Ensure Council Reports page and /Guide are up
Meeting closed.