IRC log of w3process on 2023-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

06:32:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #w3process
06:32:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-w3process-irc
06:32:38 [Ian]
RRSAgent, do not leave
06:32:42 [Ian]
RRSAgent, make logs public
06:32:44 [Ian]
Meeting: Chartering at W3C
06:32:46 [Ian]
Chair: Florian Rivoal, Elika Etemad, Philippe Le Hegaret
06:32:48 [Ian]
Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43
06:32:50 [Ian]
clear agenda
06:32:55 [Ian]
agenda+ Pick a scribe
06:32:55 [Ian]
agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
06:33:00 [Ian]
agenda+ Goal of this session
06:33:02 [Ian]
agenda+ Discussion
06:33:04 [Ian]
agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues
06:33:24 [Ian]
Ian has left #w3process
07:06:47 [Ian]
Ian has joined #w3process
07:06:51 [Ian]
Ian has left #w3process
07:09:43 [Ian]
Ian has joined #w3process
07:09:45 [Ian]
Ian has left #w3process
07:16:52 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
07:24:31 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
07:26:18 [florian]
present+
07:28:18 [tzviya]
tzviya has joined #w3process
07:31:10 [cpn]
cpn has joined #w3process
07:31:10 [MichaelWilson]
MichaelWilson has joined #w3process
07:32:15 [florian]
zakim, agenda?
07:32:15 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
07:32:15 [Zakim]
1. Pick a scribe [from Ian]
07:32:15 [Zakim]
2. Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy [from Ian]
07:32:15 [Zakim]
3. Goal of this session [from Ian]
07:32:15 [Zakim]
4. Discussion [from Ian]
07:32:15 [Zakim]
5. Next steps / where discussion continues [from Ian]
07:32:49 [cpn]
present+ Chris_Needham
07:34:10 [dom__]
dom__ has joined #w3process
07:34:34 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
07:35:03 [dom__]
Present+
07:35:18 [florian]
zakim, take up next agendum
07:35:18 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Pick a scribe -- taken up [from Ian]
07:35:22 [nigel]
Present+ Nigel_Megitt
07:35:37 [plh]
present+
07:36:05 [fantasai]
present+
07:36:09 [csarven]
present+
07:36:09 [MichaelWilson]
present+
07:36:17 [anssik]
anssik has joined #w3process
07:36:45 [anssik]
Present+ Anssi_Kostiainen
07:36:45 [cwilso]
present+
07:37:13 [rgrant]
rgrant has joined #w3process
07:37:25 [hongchan]
hongchan has joined #w3process
07:37:28 [rgrant]
present+
07:37:36 [florian]
zakim, take up next agendum
07:37:36 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy -- taken up [from Ian]
07:37:52 [hongchan]
<hongchan> present+
07:38:03 [kaz]
kaz has joined #w3process
07:38:08 [kaz]
present+ Kaz
07:38:21 [kaz]
scribenick: kaz
07:38:30 [kaz]
topic: Quick intro
07:38:34 [kaz]
Florian
07:38:36 [florian]
Florian Rivoal, Invited Expert, Advisory Board, Process co-editor
07:38:42 [kaz]
PLH
07:39:02 [kaz]
Kaz
07:39:04 [kaz]
Chris Wilson
07:39:08 [kaz]
Nigel Megitt
07:39:22 [kaz]
@@@
07:39:24 [kaz]
Igarashi
07:39:41 [MichaelWilson]
Michael Wilson, Google Chrome
07:39:52 [nigel]
s/Nigel Megitt/Nigel Megitt, BBC, co-chair TTWG, chair ADCG
07:39:55 [cwilso]
s/Chris Wilson/Chris Wilson, Google Chrome and Advisory Board
07:40:11 [cpn]
Chris Needham, AC rep, Media WG co-chair, MEIG co-chair
07:40:14 [hongchan]
Hongchan Choi, Google Chrome, Co-chair Audio WG
07:40:43 [kaz]
remote:
07:41:15 [kaz]
Sarven
07:41:16 [kaz]
Dom
07:41:21 [kaz]
Fantasai
07:41:25 [seanturner]
seanturner has joined #w3process
07:41:30 [kaz]
Ryan
07:41:31 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #w3process
07:41:33 [florian]
zakim, take up next agendum
07:41:33 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Goal of this session -- taken up [from Ian]
07:41:34 [rgrant]
Ryan Grant, AC rep for Digital Contract Design
07:41:36 [seanturner]
Sean Turner (sn3rd)
07:41:41 [igarashi]
present+ Tatusuya.Igarashi
07:41:43 [seanturner]
<--- in room
07:41:45 [fantasai]
s/Fantasai/Elika Etemad aka fantasai, CSSWG, Advisory Board, Process CG co-chair, Process co-editor
07:41:56 [anssik]
Anssi Kostiainen, DAS WG, WebML WG, Second Screen WG chair
07:42:09 [jyasskin]
jyasskin has joined #w3process
07:42:43 [kaz]
florian: how chartering works and doesn't work
07:42:46 [Wolfgang]
Wolfgang has joined #w3process
07:42:55 [kaz]
... process says Team pays attention
07:43:01 [kaz]
... must tell to Membership
07:43:07 [kaz]
... propose the Charter to the AC
07:43:11 [kaz]
... and AC review
07:43:27 [kaz]
... if no objections, the Charter is ready
07:43:40 [kaz]
... Team is responsible to talk with various parties
07:44:06 [kaz]
... possible proposals on tweaks
07:44:35 [kaz]
... the basics is very simple, Team
07:44:40 [kaz]
s/, Team//
07:44:57 [csarven]
s/Sarven/Sarven Capadisli (Independent), Solid CG chair
07:45:06 [kaz]
... but the detail is not really described well
07:45:21 [kaz]
plh: the guide we announce, etc.
07:45:31 [dom__]
Present+ ChrisL, MNot
07:45:41 [kaz]
... we need to have horizontal reviews before AC review
07:45:47 [kaz]
... but not part of the process
07:45:50 [Mirja]
Mirja has joined #w3process
07:46:27 [kaz]
... beyond the guide, if we have an existing group, what to do first is telling the Team Contact to work with the group to generate a new Charter
07:46:49 [kaz]
... we have a repository called strategy
07:46:58 [kaz]
... to manage the progress
07:47:12 [kaz]
... but would say it's not easy to follow
07:47:26 [kaz]
... sometimes it's hard to handle
07:47:39 [nigel]
-> https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html Guide page on chartering
07:48:03 [kaz]
... e.g., a CG comes to us
07:48:19 [kaz]
... but how to verify it is difficult
07:48:26 [kaz]
... e.g., PAT CG
07:48:44 [kaz]
... Solid CG
07:48:51 [kaz]
... came to us with a proposed Charter
07:49:00 [kaz]
... verifiable identity as well
07:49:24 [kaz]
... we're finishing PAT proposal and sending the proposed Charter to AC
07:49:43 [kaz]
... we have many existing CGs
07:50:05 [kaz]
... sometimes say this group should become a WG
07:50:16 [kaz]
... how to do it is a question
07:50:28 [anssik]
q+
07:50:32 [kaz]
florian: down side is it's very flexible
07:50:42 [kaz]
... the Team could propose a group too
07:50:54 [kaz]
... majority or minority
07:51:04 [kaz]
... would like to open the floor
07:51:18 [fantasai]
s/propose a group too/proposal matching to or different from what was wanted, anything is possible/
07:51:24 [florian]
zakim, take up next agendum
07:51:24 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, florian
07:51:29 [hober]
hober has joined #w3process
07:51:32 [kaz]
... encourage to start with problems first
07:51:34 [kaz]
q?
07:51:34 [jyasskin]
q+
07:51:35 [hober]
present+
07:51:39 [jyasskin]
present+
07:51:42 [fantasai]
scribenick: fantasai
07:51:44 [cpn]
q+
07:51:54 [plh]
ack anssik
07:51:56 [AramZS]
AramZS has joined #w3process
07:51:58 [fantasai]
anssik: Thanks for intro
07:52:05 [AramZS]
present+
07:52:08 [fantasai]
... wrt best practices for my WG for improving engagement in chartering process
07:52:12 [fantasai]
... I think some groups don't follow
07:52:25 [fantasai]
... initial charter is in GH repo, and we actively advertise this
07:52:27 [seanturner]
seanturner has joined #w3process
07:52:36 [fantasai]
... try to make it as open as possible
07:52:41 [fantasai]
... helps acceptance in AC
07:52:54 [fantasai]
... idk if you have that as a best practice, but it's good
07:53:02 [fantasai]
anssik: I have a question, you mentioned WASM WG
07:53:06 [fantasai]
... charter expired a long time agao
07:53:10 [fantasai]
... is there something we can learn from this?
07:53:22 [plh]
q+ to answer on wasm charter
07:53:25 [fantasai]
... frustrated Members that WG charters expired
07:53:28 [florian]
q?
07:53:47 [fantasai]
plh: It was my failure that WASM wasn't rechartered properly
07:53:53 [florian]
ack plh
07:53:53 [Zakim]
plh, you wanted to answer on wasm charter
07:53:55 [fantasai]
... I lost the Team Contact, and became Team Contact for 7 monhts
07:53:58 [fantasai]
... and was too busy
07:54:00 [fantasai]
... have help now
07:54:03 [florian]
q+
07:54:05 [florian]
q?
07:54:38 [fantasai]
... As long as we don't create a new legal entity, we should be fine
07:54:38 [fantasai]
... and I understand that there are concerns with this group
07:54:38 [fantasai]
jyasskin: 3 fairly minor problems
07:54:38 [fantasai]
... 1. It's hard to find charters. Every group puts them in a different place.
07:54:41 [fantasai]
... There's no one place to find them.
07:54:51 [fantasai]
... 2. Privacy WG chartering has been spinning because people don't know what the right thing to do is
07:54:57 [fantasai]
... so waiting instead of picking something and moving forward
07:55:09 [fantasai]
... 3. With PATWG, there was an FO around living standards text in original charter
07:55:19 [fantasai]
... but some different wording around that charter in the template, which doesn't address FO
07:55:30 [fantasai]
... I don't think anyone went back to update the template after the FO to figure out the right text
07:55:45 [fantasai]
... Now that we've noticed text in template is wrong, should update it; should have happened already
07:55:54 [fantasai]
ChrisL: I'm one of the maintainers of the template
07:56:08 [fantasai]
... Recently, was waiting for wording to be resolved
07:56:22 [fantasai]
... as I kept updating to match charter drafts, but that created a lot of churn
07:56:34 [nigel]
-> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html Charter Template
07:56:35 [fantasai]
... so I've been asked to slow down, make sure there's consensus before making changes to template
07:56:36 [AramZS]
q?
07:57:02 [fantasai]
jyasskin: Tantek raised objection, idk if he messaged that template should change
07:57:02 [plh]
q+ to talk about charter template
07:57:14 [jyasskin]
q-
07:57:19 [rgrant]
q+ to say WG and non-WG AC-reps who disagree are not engaged in a process of consensus
07:57:24 [plh]
ack cpn
07:57:32 [fantasai]
cpn: Folowing up on template issue, I've recently raised objections at AC Review stage
07:57:40 [fantasai]
... not substantial in terms of the work, but changes made in template
07:57:50 [fantasai]
... I think having more of a defined process around managing template sounds like a good thing
07:58:00 [fantasai]
... One of the objections was related to something that originated in PATCG
07:58:13 [fantasai]
... interesting listening to Sam talking about moving towards more community-driven chartering process
07:58:21 [hober]
q+
07:58:22 [AramZS]
q+ to say that the charters should be handled in comparison to the state of the template at the time the group is chartered. It's fine to evolve quickly on the template I think, but it shouldn't happen at the expense of chartering process for groups. Also - would like more best practice charters.
07:58:23 [fantasai]
... I'd like to move as much of discussion around charters up front as possible
07:58:29 [fantasai]
... so objections can be resolved before final stage
07:58:38 [fantasai]
... I don't want to use AC Review FOs to resolve problems
07:58:49 [anssik]
q+ to ask about joint deliverables
07:58:53 [fantasai]
... wrt PATCG, there's still an unresolved objection, but the chairs have chosen not to reopen discussion
07:59:10 [fantasai]
florian: One thing I've found uncomfortable in the past
07:59:14 [plh]
q-
07:59:21 [fantasai]
... not necessarily when rechartering, but when initially charter
07:59:31 [fantasai]
... unclear who is chairing the chartering process vs proponent of an issue
07:59:43 [fantasai]
... e.g. I filed an issue, and they closed it and say "Nah, that's not what we're doing"
07:59:48 [fantasai]
... Unclear how this works
08:00:03 [fantasai]
... and by the time gets to AC Review, [missed]
08:00:28 [fantasai]
rgrant: WG and non-WG AC Reps that don't find consensus are not engaged in a process of consensus
08:00:33 [florian]
s/[missed]/the AC does not get to know that this is how comments were closed
08:00:40 [fantasai]
... when there are FOs, the matter is immediately sent to a Council
08:00:49 [csarven]
q+
08:00:49 [fantasai]
... so I'm looking for a process of consensus somewhere
08:00:49 [florian]
qq+
08:00:59 [plh]
ack florian
08:00:59 [Zakim]
florian, you wanted to react to cpn
08:01:10 [fantasai]
florian: to respond briefly, the normal practice is that before going to Council, the Team discusses with participants and tries to find consensus
08:01:26 [fantasai]
... but left to Team to determine if there's a path to consensus; if they don't believe, they can go directly to Council
08:01:31 [florian]
q-
08:01:32 [fantasai]
... but first step *is* to seek consensus
08:01:33 [plh]
ack florian
08:01:34 [florian]
q-
08:01:35 [nigel]
q+
08:01:39 [fantasai]
s/step/step of handling FOs/
08:01:41 [plh]
ack rgrant
08:01:41 [Zakim]
rgrant, you wanted to say WG and non-WG AC-reps who disagree are not engaged in a process of consensus
08:01:45 [plh]
ack hober
08:02:07 [jyasskin]
Florian was describing https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#team-fo-mediation about the team mediating before going to the Council.
08:02:12 [fantasai]
hober: Main consumers of charters are lawyers of large companies who are trying to figure out whether OK to join group or not
08:02:15 [fantasai]
... Risk assessment
08:02:33 [fantasai]
... What I hear from lawyers, the tighter and narrower the charter is scoped, the easier and faster it is to do that risk assessment
08:02:38 [fantasai]
... Sometimes those assesments take time
08:02:49 [fantasai]
... As an engineer, I get frustrated, because I want to join the group yesterday.
08:03:13 [fantasai]
... What I heard in the PATCG was, ppl are concerned that if they scope the PATWG charter too narrowly, they'll have to recharter
08:03:17 [fantasai]
... too annoying, don't want to do
08:03:24 [fantasai]
... I'm sympathetic to the concern, you want more wiggle room
08:03:41 [fantasai]
... but the more wiggle room you have, the harder it is for engineers at large companies to join the group in a timely manner
08:03:42 [cwilso]
qq+
08:03:43 [anssik]
q?
08:03:49 [fantasai]
... I'd like rechartering to be something we can do quickly, and cost is low
08:03:56 [fantasai]
... so that groups are more comfortable with a tighter charter
08:04:18 [plh]
ack cwilso
08:04:18 [Zakim]
cwilso, you wanted to react to hober
08:04:18 [fantasai]
cwilso: It actually is. We have to be cautious as engineers at large companies, how much scope we're signing up to
08:04:18 [dom__]
[I wonder if this points to maybe different approaches to adopt for chartering/rechartering?]
08:04:24 [plh]
ack AramZS
08:04:24 [Zakim]
AramZS, you wanted to say that the charters should be handled in comparison to the state of the template at the time the group is chartered. It's fine to evolve quickly on the
08:04:24 [fantasai]
... harder for us to go convince lawyers
08:04:27 [Zakim]
... template I think, but it shouldn't happen at the expense of chartering process for groups. Also - would like more best practice charters.
08:04:43 [fantasai]
AramZS: In terms of template discussion, don't think it's bad that template evolves, even if rapidly
08:04:50 [fantasai]
... only if it gets a problem when chartering
08:04:59 [fantasai]
... Template is template to build upon, not the only way
08:05:02 [dom__]
q+ to suggest evaluating rechartering shortcuts
08:05:13 [fantasai]
... would be good as ppl respond to feedback, building up
08:05:23 [fantasai]
... more difficulty of chartering if people are trying to [missed]
08:05:37 [fantasai]
AramZS: Would also be better to get more best-practice charters
08:05:56 [fantasai]
... What goes well with lawyers? is a concept we don't quite understand
08:06:02 [plh]
q+ chris
08:06:03 [fantasai]
... Some level of feedback ...
08:06:10 [plh]
ack anssik
08:06:10 [Zakim]
anssik, you wanted to ask about joint deliverables
08:06:15 [fantasai]
anssik: Like to folow up on ?
08:06:26 [fantasai]
... I think we have a possible solution, discussing over last year
08:06:37 [fantasai]
... example: 2 WGs want to define 4-5 specs as joint deliverable
08:06:40 [florian]
s/up on ?/up on what Tess and Chris said
08:06:41 [cpn]
s/?/scope creep of charters
08:06:49 [fantasai]
... I'd like to say that scope of some groups be large, in part for ?? reasons
08:07:05 [AramZS]
s/people are trying to [missed]/people are trying to hit a moving target
08:07:29 [fantasai]
... I was following up on Tess and ? wrt broadly-scoped WGs
08:07:36 [jyasskin]
s/?/Chris/
08:07:41 [fantasai]
... we have a concrete case of 2 WGs that want to take up substantial joint work around 4-5 specs
08:07:55 [fantasai]
... scope of these WGs, we want to split a bit, that's due to historical reasons
08:08:04 [fantasai]
... previously supergroup that adopted new work as came through incubation
08:08:37 [fantasai]
... we believe joint deliverable will be a good way to solve scope creep issue
08:08:37 [fantasai]
... but one blocker on our way is that joint deliverable as a concept isn't defined anywhere in W3C Process
08:08:37 [fantasai]
... which was surprise to me
08:08:45 [fantasai]
... that we don't have agreement or rules on how we would do this
08:08:59 [fantasai]
... I feel a bit bad, not able to deliver this agreement for joint work for my summer vacation
08:09:08 [fantasai]
... found out it took 10 years to come up with solution
08:09:22 [fantasai]
... would like to solve this problem, that joint deliverables might be a solution
08:09:27 [fantasai]
s/come up/not come up
08:09:29 [florian]
q?
08:09:42 [plh]
ack csarven
08:09:53 [fantasai]
sarven: Wrt how chairs are chosen
08:10:48 [fantasai]
[audio cut]
08:11:09 [plh]
ack nigel
08:11:20 [fantasai]
nigel: My first point is, although it's the Team formally who need to prepare the charter
08:11:20 [csarven]
https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43#issuecomment-1711273031
08:11:20 [csarven]
Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568
08:11:27 [fantasai]
... as you described, Team worked with group
08:11:38 [fantasai]
... I think it's confusing, needs to be a person who takes lead and owns it
08:11:51 [fantasai]
... gathering views of people etc.
08:12:01 [fantasai]
... Over many years of rechartering, there was an expectation that chairs would prepare the charter
08:12:10 [fantasai]
... I think that situation has become less clear over time, needs to get more clear
08:12:20 [fantasai]
... Charter is a deliverable document, needs an owner, and we need to know who that is
08:12:37 [fantasai]
nigel: Wrt consensus, when chartering for first time
08:12:47 [fantasai]
... not a defined group that you're trying to agree among
08:13:00 [fantasai]
... If you have 10 people and 1 doesn't agree, can recast it as 9 people who agree
08:13:03 [hober]
q?
08:13:04 [fantasai]
... that's an anti-pattern
08:13:11 [fantasai]
nigel: There's a point jyasskin made about findability
08:13:17 [fantasai]
... has been suggestion is to put all in repo
08:13:22 [rgrant]
q+ to say rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear forum for consensus
08:13:24 [fantasai]
... really bad idea, difficult to work on comments per charter
08:13:31 [fantasai]
... one document per repo is a better idea
08:13:37 [fantasai]
... orthogonal to findability problem
08:13:54 [fantasai]
nigel: Charter template adds a lot of pressure to conform
08:13:59 [fantasai]
... that's a new thing, doesn't feel right
08:14:02 [fantasai]
... too much pressure to conform
08:14:07 [fantasai]
... idk how to address that balance
08:14:08 [jyasskin]
+1 to one document per repo
08:14:21 [fantasai]
... There's a part of charter, if group doesn't intend to move to REC, add this text
08:14:38 [fantasai]
... I think if a group doesn't intend to go to REC, needs a lot more highlighting than that!
08:14:45 [fantasai]
... if you're working on a standard, why not making a standard?
08:14:53 [fantasai]
s/... There's/nigel: There's/
08:15:01 [fantasai]
nigel: Wrt deliverables and timeline, there's duplication
08:15:09 [fantasai]
... either have a list of deliverables with times
08:15:11 [fantasai]
... or a timeline
08:15:18 [fantasai]
... having both creates potential for error state
08:15:23 [fantasai]
... happens like 100% of the time
08:15:25 [plh]
--> https://github.com/w3c/Guide/pull/179 One repo for ALL
08:15:26 [fantasai]
... very unhelpful
08:15:39 [fantasai]
nigel: Lastly, I don't understand how the joint deliverable idea
08:15:44 [fantasai]
... how it works, what does it mean?
08:15:48 [fantasai]
... Making things confusing for people
08:15:58 [fantasai]
... should be a better way, much clearer to have specific ownership of each REC-track document
08:16:01 [fantasai]
... then you know what's happening
08:16:02 [anssik]
q+ to respond to nigel re joint deliverables
08:16:05 [anssik]
q?
08:16:06 [fantasai]
... if you need more people, have them join the group
08:16:27 [fantasai]
... or have formal requirement to get review
08:16:32 [florian]
q+ fantasai to speak about joint deliverables
08:16:32 [anssik]
qq+
08:16:37 [AramZS]
+1 to one document per repo for sure
08:16:37 [fantasai]
... that feels like safer places from management place
08:16:52 [fantasai]
... I'm sure you're solving a problem there, not sure what it is, but going to create a lot of other problems
08:17:01 [plh]
ack anssik
08:17:03 [Zakim]
anssik, you wanted to react to nigel
08:17:16 [fantasai]
anssik: I agree that we need joint deliverables defined before we use them
08:17:20 [fantasai]
... can't create the rules as you're flying
08:17:30 [fantasai]
plh: We've been using joint deliverables for the past 20 years
08:17:40 [fantasai]
anssik: We need a written agremeent. Doesn't need to be complex
08:17:45 [plh]
ack dom
08:17:45 [Zakim]
dom__, you wanted to suggest evaluating rechartering shortcuts
08:17:49 [fantasai]
dom__: 2 points
08:18:06 [fantasai]
... 1 pattern I'm hearing is that rechartering has created a push for looser charters, which create problems
08:18:23 [fantasai]
... so maybe one space of exploration is creating a simpler rechartering for adding deliverables
08:18:34 [fantasai]
... Stepping back I hope we get out of this breakout, how do we go about these topics
08:18:45 [tantek]
tantek has joined #w3process
08:18:52 [fantasai]
... Not just Process document, not just Team operation thing, also involves WG chairs trying to understand their roles, same for CGs
08:18:57 [anssik]
q-
08:19:02 [fantasai]
... If we can get a sense of right mechanism, that would be helpful
08:19:06 [plh]
ack chris
08:19:16 [tantek]
present+
08:19:31 [fantasai]
ChrisL: wrt legal thing, one change to template recently to change "scope" and "motivation" sections
08:19:37 [fantasai]
... since actual scope is what legal need to review
08:20:03 [plh]
ack sarven
08:20:13 [fantasai]
csarven: Wrt how chairs are chosen
08:20:19 [fantasai]
... want the Team to be more transparent about that process
08:20:19 [tantek]
present+ Gonzalo Camarillo
08:20:31 [fantasai]
... I understand it's a private decision, not sure whether AB is involved in decision or aware of discussion?
08:20:45 [fantasai]
... if there is a charter being proposed, coming from a CG, I think the CG and community can benefit from
08:20:56 [fantasai]
... knowign decisions made beyond proposing the charter
08:21:03 [AramZS]
I do wonder if there is a problem with too much history etc being put in charters I'd suggest formalizing some sort of history / background artifact that is optional to groups instead of trying to *formalize* putting that information in the charter itself just in a different section.
08:21:05 [nigel]
+1 to Dom's suggestion of easier process to add deliverables to charter
08:21:18 [fantasai]
... Document on role of the chair, and the document is along the lines of self-review for chairs nominating themselves and for Team to consider
08:21:35 [fantasai]
... Slight gap between CG proposing a charter, Team updating charter with chairs
08:21:44 [fantasai]
... no communication with CG as to why those particular chairs were chosen
08:21:46 [AramZS]
Yes +1 to making it easier to add deliverables to the charter.
08:21:51 [fantasai]
... I have a list of question, maybe publish somewhere
08:22:07 [plh]
q?
08:22:08 [fantasai]
... so that chair selection is more clear
08:22:11 [csarven]
https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43#issuecomment-1711273031
08:22:11 [csarven]
Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568
08:22:16 [rgrant]
it seems that one of the reasons for team's involvement in chartering is tht there is not a clear quorum for consensus. rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear quorum for consensus, and the consensus should be within the WG. when the team takes a charter out of the WG without consensus they have the opportunity to present the worst worded charter to AC-review rather than a charter with the weakest technical objec
08:22:16 [rgrant]
tions.
08:22:19 [plh]
ack rgrant
08:22:19 [Zakim]
rgrant, you wanted to say rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear forum for consensus
08:22:27 [tantek]
+1 csarven great questions. and https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568 looks really useful too
08:22:38 [fantasai]
rgrant: Seems reason for Team's involvement in chartering is that there's not a clear quorum for consensus
08:22:42 [fantasai]
... when chartering
08:22:51 [fantasai]
... but for rechartering, I think should be in WG
08:23:07 [fantasai]
... when Team takes a charter out of WG, they might take a bad charter
08:23:18 [fantasai]
... for that reason, the consensus required for rechartering should come from within the WG
08:23:22 [plh]
ack fantasai
08:23:22 [Zakim]
fantasai, you wanted to speak about joint deliverables
08:23:37 [plh]
q+
08:23:39 [csarven]
tantek: I'd be honoured! Please copy/revise/reuse as you see fit. Would love to see something along these lines out there in W3C docs.
08:23:48 [florian]
fantasai: external review is not a good substitute for join deliverables
08:23:54 [tantek]
thank you so much csarven. really appreciate it 🙏🏻
08:23:59 [florian]
fantasai: because it doesn't give IPR commitments
08:24:11 [florian]
fantasai: only the publish group is bound by the patent policy
08:24:31 [plh]
ack plh
08:24:34 [florian]
fantasai: [missed], it's not that complicated
08:24:45 [fantasai]
plh: Wrt charter template, reason we do it
08:24:50 [jyasskin]
q+
08:24:52 [kaz]
s/join de/joint de/
08:24:56 [fantasai]
... I see some AC reps trying to push through requirements outside the process
08:25:03 [fantasai]
... a good example is the Ethical Web Principles
08:25:17 [fantasai]
... this is not adopted by the Membership, only by TAG
08:25:24 [fantasai]
... it's in the template, but I'm very uncomfortable with it
08:25:31 [fantasai]
... but also I understand why it's there
08:25:40 [fantasai]
... I think solution is to push TAG to adopt as Statement
08:25:46 [fantasai]
... but putting in template is problematic I believe
08:25:50 [fantasai]
... I haveplenty other examples
08:25:54 [florian]
q?
08:25:56 [florian]
q+
08:26:00 [fantasai]
plh: I wonder if we should announce, when we make changes, to the AC
08:26:06 [fantasai]
... currently no opportunity to push back on template changes
08:26:20 [fantasai]
plh: AB has made it clear that the template is not requirements, they're guidelines
08:26:33 [fantasai]
... Welcome to not follow, if good reason. Should document the reaosns
08:26:45 [kaz]
s/haveplenty/have plenty/
08:26:45 [AramZS]
q?
08:26:53 [fantasai]
plh: Another thing, to help solve problem of lawyers, moving more of the text into separate documents
08:26:57 [fantasai]
... sections that don't get modified
08:27:08 [fantasai]
... e.g. testing policy, linked from every charter, but it's a separate document
08:27:14 [AramZS]
jyasskin: no
08:27:16 [nigel]
q+ to respond to the need to document why not following the charter template
08:27:21 [fantasai]
... says it can't be changed without AC review, to reassure lawyers
08:27:30 [florian]
q- later
08:27:33 [fantasai]
plh: Yes, I encourage staff to work with community as much as possible
08:27:37 [AramZS]
q?
08:27:46 [fantasai]
... to work with CG and WG and try to find consensus
08:27:54 [fantasai]
... but if no conensus found, not a blocker for the staff
08:28:03 [fantasai]
... Can't allow a member of community to block
08:28:06 [fantasai]
... next step is AC Review
08:28:14 [fantasai]
... For DID charter, we were fully expecting to get FO
08:28:27 [rgrant]
that's a process objection
08:28:31 [fantasai]
... Btw, formally not able to FO prior to FO atm
08:28:33 [fantasai]
... need to try to solve that
08:28:52 [fantasai]
... My current motivation is, whether I receive before or during AC Review, should send them all to Council
08:28:53 [AramZS]
q+ to say 'Good reason to alter from the template' is in the eye of the beholder, and is not a very great process step. If deviations from the template need to be justified we need clearer guidance on: how, to what extent, what justification information is expected?
08:29:00 [florian]
q- later
08:29:05 [florian]
zakim, close the queue
08:29:05 [Zakim]
ok, florian, the speaker queue is closed
08:29:27 [fantasai]
plh: Would like to simplify rechartering, but when we present e.g. adding a deliverable, the AC will sometimes comment on other parts, even FO on them
08:29:40 [anssik]
[ Off the queue Q: Should informing the AC of template changes apply to the CG charter template too? It is used by many productive CGs. ]
08:29:40 [fantasai]
... e.g. DID WG. If we propose a pure maintenance charter to AC, would get FO today
08:29:43 [florian]
q?
08:29:44 [kaz]
q+
08:30:02 [fantasai]
jyasskin: Don't have time to talk about solutions, is someone write them up as issues and CC folks?
08:30:07 [plh]
ack jyasskin
08:30:11 [plh]
ack nigel
08:30:11 [Zakim]
nigel, you wanted to respond to the need to document why not following the charter template
08:30:24 [fantasai]
nigel: Responding to thing about not using charter wording, have to explain why
08:30:29 [fantasai]
... that's example of pressure to conform
08:30:38 [fantasai]
... as long as you're working in the Process, shouldn't need to justify yourself
08:30:46 [fantasai]
... Classic example of going too far with template
08:30:53 [fantasai]
nigel: Another point, AC Review is too late
08:31:07 [fantasai]
... FOs in AC Review go to Council quite often, add time delay and stress
08:31:19 [fantasai]
... we need a group that owns development of charters, can understand its own consensus before AC Review
08:31:27 [fantasai]
... which should be a final stage. Should be exception to get FO
08:31:32 [fantasai]
... smoother for everyone
08:31:36 [rgrant]
+1 to AC-review is an exception after the proper group seeks consensus
08:31:45 [fantasai]
hober: I feel tension between template vs objections
08:31:55 [fantasai]
... charter template is to capture best practices for not getting objections
08:32:05 [plh]
ack AramZS
08:32:05 [Zakim]
AramZS, you wanted to say 'Good reason to alter from the template' is in the eye of the beholder, and is not a very great process step. If deviations from the template need to be
08:32:07 [tantek]
+1 hober
08:32:08 [Zakim]
... justified we need clearer guidance on: how, to what extent, what justification information is expected?
08:32:12 [fantasai]
AramZS: Wrt charter template, I understnad what's being said here
08:32:18 [fantasai]
... wrt avoiding objections
08:32:24 [fantasai]
... if that's the route we want to go, if deviating
08:32:34 [fantasai]
... what the justifications, how to work with group that deviates
08:32:38 [fantasai]
... needs to be better document
08:32:45 [fantasai]
... what's a good documentation? What makes it a good justification?
08:32:51 [fantasai]
... if using template as part of process, need to be clear
08:32:51 [Wolfgang]
q?
08:32:56 [plh]
ack florian
08:33:03 [fantasai]
florian: This is clearly not a converstaion that's over
08:33:08 [fantasai]
... priority project of AB for the entire year
08:33:18 [fantasai]
... working from these minutes, we'll try to summarize the various points raised
08:33:21 [fantasai]
... debrief to AB
08:33:30 [fantasai]
... eventually won't be surprised if changes to Process
08:33:40 [dom__]
[Ian and I had explored not just maintaining the template but also the reasons that led to its content]
08:33:41 [fantasai]
... but atm don't jump into solution space
08:33:47 [tantek]
+1 florian, digest what has been discussed today instead of jumping into solution space immediately
08:33:52 [fantasai]
... next step will be discussion in AB, and eventually this will get into Process and Guide
08:34:01 [fantasai]
... but middle zone in between, and that will be part of what AB talks about
08:34:11 [fantasai]
... do we put all of this discussion into Process CG? Discuss first in AB?
08:34:30 [fantasai]
... not clear, but input from today will give us a sense of scope for what we do
08:34:36 [AramZS]
dom__: Sorry! I think the summary from my question on the queue is a decent summary of what I was trying to say, I tried not to go too far off topic.
08:34:45 [fantasai]
florian: Thanks everyone for your input, conclusions coming but not in 5min!
08:34:56 [MichaelWilson]
MichaelWilson has left #w3process
08:37:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-w3process-minutes.html tantek
08:40:49 [Wolfgang]
Wolfgang has left #w3process
09:01:00 [Song]
Song has joined #w3process
09:01:34 [wendyreid]
wendyreid has joined #w3process
09:05:33 [AramZS]
AramZS has joined #w3process
09:06:09 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
09:06:59 [kaz]
kaz has joined #w3process
09:36:53 [tantek]
tantek has joined #w3process
10:19:11 [AramZS]
AramZS has joined #w3process
11:54:06 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process