13:52:10 RRSAgent has joined #vision 13:52:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/28-vision-irc 13:52:14 Zakim has joined #vision 13:52:37 meeting: Vision TF meeting 13:52:45 zakim, prepare meeting 13:52:45 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:52:46 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), amy 13:52:56 meeting: Vision TF meeting 13:53:02 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-09-28 13:53:11 agenda? 13:53:43 Chair: Chris 13:55:03 agenda+ Open PR on pointing to Web we are leading to 13:55:11 agenda+ Examine issues marked as needed for Statement 13:55:19 agenda+ Examine issues needed for next Draft (currently empty 13:56:55 present+ 13:57:47 present+ Avneesh, Florian, PLH 13:58:29 cpn has joined #vision 14:00:09 present+ Chris 14:00:49 AvneeshSingh has joined #vision 14:01:15 ACTION: Amy to extend the Vision TF calendar until 9 November 14:01:26 scribe: amy 14:01:34 present+ ChrisN 14:01:34 present+ 14:02:01 zakim, agenda? 14:02:01 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:02:02 1. Open PR on pointing to Web we are leading to [from amy] 14:02:02 2. Examine issues marked as needed for Statement [from amy] 14:02:02 3. Examine issues needed for next Draft (currently empty [from amy] 14:02:05 present+ 14:02:23 wendyreid has joined #vision 14:02:38 present+ 14:02:49 present+ Coralie 14:03:12 mchampion has joined #vision 14:03:48 present+ 14:04:51 Chris: I sent out an agenda yesterday. Mostly I want to use the time to examine what we need to resolve as a group to publish a next draft and get to a statement and what to defer to v2 14:05:00 gendler has joined #vision 14:05:02 present+ 14:05:08 ... gettin ot statement is important. Florian also noted the 2 items marked as agenda+ 14:05:12 zakim, take up agenda 1 14:05:13 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/128 14:05:13 agendum 1 -- Open PR on pointing to Web we are leading to -- taken up [from amy] 14:05:40 ... This is an attempt to raise an issue Elika brought up. to point out the web we are trying to build toward 14:05:58 ...we talk about w3c but not the web. I did not have a lot of content. Elika not sure you've gotten to look at this 14:06:11 ... happy to defer but I'd like to get eyes on it for ways to improve 14:06:19 ... I saw DanA added a suggestion I'm not sure what it does 14:06:37 Wendy: restructures a sentence so it's easier to parse 14:06:47 Charles: chops into 2 clauses, it's not a bad thing 14:07:03 +1 14:07:08 Chris: Ok. i am ambivalent but I hear 2 voices saying they like it. 14:07:18 +1 14:07:18 ... i'd like to ask Elika to review 14:07:24 q? 14:07:33 fantasai: good direction, just needs to connect. i'll try to figure out how to do that better 14:07:33 q+ 14:07:45 ack tantek 14:07:49 Chris: ok. if you can figure that out. other things put in PR. i'll merge before next meeting 14:07:54 s/connect/connect the sentences of the paragraph together better/ 14:08:42 Tantek: I agree. i looked at that PR and it looks good. i'm ok to leave issue 118 open pending on feedback from Elika. i agree /w more time for review 14:08:42 Chris: great thanks 14:08:42 zakim, take up agenda 2 14:08:42 agendum 2 -- Examine issues marked as needed for Statement -- taken up [from amy] 14:08:42 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needed+for+Statement%22 14:08:42 Chris: I took a stab at issues which need to be addressed. whether discussed and resolved or changes made 14:08:54 ...it's up for grabs. i'm not making any decision on what needs to be done. they just need to be done 14:09:06 ... i didn't see anything blocking next draft. just publishing the draft 14:09:13 +1 to publishing draft 14:09:26 Chris: if you have a pet issue to raise before publishing draft be ready to send that 14:09:46 ... i don't necessarily wan to go through issues in depth. i want ot walk through but don't expect to resolve 14:10:08 ... if ppl feel we should resolve before a statement or more important or prioritize. it's hard to get a sense of the broader group so i'm grasping for input 14:10:11 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/126 14:10:17 ... consensus based editing is challenging 14:10:22 ack fan 14:10:29 fantasai: I think all open issues need to be closed before we push to statement 14:10:38 [the selector currently returns #126, #120, #118, #115, #113] 14:10:48 ... next step is not Statement but Note which represents AB consensus 14:11:01 q+ 14:11:05 ... before we can put in front of W3C. either by addressing or etc before review 14:11:11 chaals has joined #vision 14:11:20 Chris: I think every issue examined. one is on DRM and copyright. we discussed it 14:11:31 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#formal-address 14:11:42 ... we agreed last Vision TF that this i something for future but not near future. we'd defer to future version of vision or in EWP 14:11:45 q+ to agree with Elika and suggest taking up issue 113 since we nearly resolved it in our TPAC f2f 14:11:52 ... we're not closing or resolving as we didn't agree it shouldn't be looked at 14:12:01 ... Note stage is an important one as well 14:12:02 ack gendler 14:12:18 Max: question on protocol. we keep coming to points where we want to publish. new issues come up, new readers 14:12:42 q+ 14:12:50 ... is there a function to say "This is the last issue we review before publishing" do we say "these are the issues, what we've considered, there will be more". is this functionally allowed? 14:12:51 present+ 14:13:03 [Yes, for the same "maturity level"] 14:13:08 fantaasi: question of next publication on TR and question of TR. that will be consensus of w3c 14:13:23 ... for question of TR as soon as we're happy w/ changes we should publish 14:13:27 Song has joined #vision 14:13:42 ... we just did significant update. but once we get on TR once we do merges. we publish 14:13:50 +1 fantasai 14:13:50 ... should be no need to go to versions to see what's live 14:14:05 ack fan 14:14:07 fantasai, you wanted to react to gendler 14:14:12 ... for each edition o the document that's different. let's address most things but there might be specific issues like Chris just brought up to defer 14:14:22 .. .but will be few issues in that category. most should be in final edition 14:14:31 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:14:36 ... shouldn't be 'wording is off" but "we won't address this topic" 14:14:57 present+ 14:15:00 Chris: capturing what category issues fall into is how we lock that down. in next weeks we'll start not adding new things for Note 14:15:07 s/significant update/significant rewrite, so deferring publication until we're sure we didn't regress anything/ 14:15:07 ack next 14:15:07 ... unless the group agrees they are high priority 14:15:08 tantek, you wanted to agree with Elika and suggest taking up issue 113 since we nearly resolved it in our TPAC f2f 14:15:26 Tantek: strongly agree Elika and Chris. Per Elika publishing work mode, we should propose to make a note 14:15:38 ... let's see if that goes. i don't see anything as note blocker. before we move onto issues 14:15:55 s/we get on TR once we do merges. we publish/we get this edition on TR, we should publish everything as soon as we accept changes, so that the editor's draft is only used for our internal discussion and review of Chris's proposed changes/ 14:15:57 Chris: yes I do want to end this meeting or somewhere. call for publishing a draft. it's a draft not at note 14:16:00 ... we published a draft 14:16:21 fantasai: it's a draft note. when we have AB consensus it can be an AB group Note to say it's as done as AB gets 14:16:29 Tantek: not requesting status change but republishing 14:16:35 ack next 14:16:36 Ralph, you wanted to comment on Elika's question of "addressing" 14:16:38 Chris: that's exactly what i want 14:16:55 Tantek: maybe we don't need to review issues. so like Elika said any changes 14:17:24 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#formal-address 14:17:28 Ralph: my question was similar to Max. to be clear in minutes, what addressing means. Elika, I understand acknowledging is saying we agree to defer. we saw the issue. addressed it for now 14:17:33 ... is that what you intended 14:17:40 s/need to review issues/need to review issues before proposing republishing with current status as previously published 14:18:01 fantasai; there's a concept of formally addressing issues and that's what i want 14:18:14 ack next 14:18:15 ... addressing can be changes. rejecting issues or saying we plan to do later 14:18:26 Florian: that's part of what i wanted to say. not only should we do this. we must 14:18:41 ... it's a process requirement to become a statement. as Elika just described. every issue raised 14:18:49 .. .we can say it will be done next time but we must respond 14:18:56 s/raised/rasied must be addressed/ 14:19:10 ... to elevate to statement we will have wide (horizontal) review. we should publish frequently 14:19:12 s/acknowledging is saying we agree to defer/that acknowledging we see the issue and deciding to defer to a later version is one way to "address" the issue; i.e./ 14:19:29 ... depending if we go to publishing now or other issues i might have a statement 14:19:43 qq+ 14:19:44 q+ 14:19:52 Chris: I planned to build to this. is there anything that stops us publishing a draft note? 14:19:55 ack next 14:19:56 chaals, you wanted to react to florian 14:20:05 Charles: I'd be unhappy if we published w/ out linking claimed history 14:20:20 (that's issue https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/105) 14:20:23 s/linking/unlinking/ 14:20:28 [I tend to concur with Chaals re: the "history" bits] 14:21:02 ack next 14:21:02 .. i think that's contested. i've written an issue. depending on how we think of it. depending on how we think of it my objection might be resolved but right now that's an issue 14:21:02 florian: i see 3 issues to be addressed. as set up history has been published as an appendix of previous version 14:21:08 ... there's a draft that would allow us to publish as addendum . something at bottom of document 14:21:23 q+ 14:21:26 ... option are: just keep link to old thing and keep moving. or remove link. no one is saying we should maintain history 14:21:53 .. given combo. maybe keep link or no. Charles insisting on removing old link. i suggest we remove link from new version and if they want to discuss they can in the @ version 14:21:55 sounds like we are taking up https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/131 as a draft note blocker 14:21:57 wfm 14:21:58 q? 14:22:02 +1 wfm to 14:22:07 s/wfm to/wfm too 14:22:16 Chris: I don't know why you filed 2 other issues. i want to use issue 105 for publishing or not 14:22:17 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/131, https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/130, https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/105 14:22:33 s/in the @ version/link to the dated version 14:22:49 [https://github.com/w3c/AB-public README claims HIstory.md as a "live editor draft"] 14:22:52 q+ 14:22:58 ... i'll ask a specific question to resolve that. issue 105. what we do w/ history. the option we've been moving toward. "this is not relevant for ongoing versions" we can leave in GitHub 14:23:02 fantasai: there's a link now 14:23:16 s/there's a link now/we already removed from appendix, currently just a link now/ 14:23:19 Florian: Charles is arguing for removing the link too. i think unless we're maintaining this we can remove from GH 14:23:26 ... we don't need an Editors draft 14:23:34 Chris: did you remove from appendix since last draft note 14:23:53 fantasai: when i prepared i noted it was linking to a history. ht problem was i can't publish to tr linking to GH 14:24:19 ... i inlined to new document and linked. it's now in TR and will be there but i noted we'll remove it when we publish even for a type 14:24:35 ... i shoved it in an appendix. w/ the object of removong it 14:24:42 Chris: anyone object to removing this? 14:24:47 PROPOSAL: Remove link to History 14:24:50 +1 14:24:52 PROPOSAL: remove link to dated version of text 14:24:53 +1 14:24:54 The markdown doc is gone too, not sure if that matters 14:24:54 +1 14:24:56 +1 14:24:56 +1 14:24:56 +1 14:24:56 +1 14:24:56 +! 14:24:57 +1 to removing the link 14:24:58 Florian: the text has been removed. we're asking to remove the link to the dated version 14:25:04 +1 14:25:06 +1 14:25:08 +1 to removing the link 14:25:12 q? 14:25:20 Chris: I'm not seeing anyone object to this 14:25:20 +1 to remove the link to the unmaintained "history" 14:25:21 +1 14:25:23 ack me 14:25:24 s/linking to a history/linking to a GitHub document called History/ 14:25:30 Florian: as soon as this passes, I have a question 14:25:39 RESOLVED: remove link to dated text of history 14:25:39 Chris: let's call that Resolved 14:25:44 ack next 14:25:48 q+ to ask if this resolves 131 14:25:55 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/tree/main/Vision/History.bs 14:25:57 s/inlined to new document and linked/inlined into an appendix of the new document and published into the first public draft note, with explicit note that it will be removed in the next publication (and only exist in dated space)/ 14:26:08 [I am satisfied that RESOLUTION closes https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/131] 14:26:09 PROPOSAL: Remove ED of the History, in favor of copy on TR 14:26:12 Florian: given we're not publishing and not maintaining the equivalent of an editor's draft does not need to exist. and so I think we should delete the draft we're not maintaining. the dated version is enough 14:26:15 +1 14:26:23 +1 14:26:25 Chris: Let's ask that question. anyone object to removing that? 14:26:45 q? 14:26:47 qq+ 14:26:52 Ralph: what's the social understanding of deleting something from GH. as someone who hates to delete any conversation to how we got to this state. what does delete mean here? 14:27:03 q- 14:27:13 Chris: in the current repo. you can still read it but it's clear it's not maintained piece 14:27:17 q+ to also ask is this a draft note publishing blocker? 14:27:25 Ralph: different than saying "historic value" 14:27:44 Chris: we're declining saying "historical value". for archival value you can find it 14:27:44 q+ to respond to tantek 14:28:03 So removing the file from the tip of main is what we're talking about 14:28:11 yes 14:28:13 Charles: I share Ralph's concern. there's a difference between rip up and throw away and change it to say "we don't stand by this" w/ an empty document 14:28:24 Got it. Thanks for confirming cwilso 14:28:40 ... i'm not sure we say what those things mean. we do on TR have this. i'm not terribly concerned by to Tanteks' point we can resolve later 14:28:51 [I don't consider the question of whether to remove history.md from the repo is a blocker to publishing] 14:29:00 +1 Ralph 14:29:11 Chris: I want to resolve Tantek's question. id' have said I want to resolve 130 and 131 which is to remove this. as the person who filed these is that acceptable 14:29:50 Charles: 130 is resolved. @ it's not clear. we should replace w/ document to say we don't agree enough to leave as a draft. do we disappear the document from GH or leave a stub is a question worth thinking about 14:30:01 .. in TR you don't just delete but say where you can find it 14:30:15 ... echoing Ralphs concern. not particularly worked up which we do. it's a w3c wide and perhaps AB issue to say 14:30:26 ... it would be good on what this means. to remove a document from GH 14:30:31 fantasai: think we're going way far 14:30:35 q? 14:30:38 Charles: we're in the weeds 14:30:48 Tantek: let's stay on target. draft document 14:30:57 .. we don't need to fully clean everything up 14:31:12 Chris: request to not use terms like "claiming something is bunk" 14:31:19 .. i think we have resolution 14:31:20 PROPOSAL: Close 131 as resolved by removal of the link 14:31:20 ack tantek 14:31:20 tantek, you wanted to ask if this resolves 131 and to also ask is this a draft note publishing blocker? 14:31:25 [fair point about issue title] 14:31:26 Tantek: first, let's close 131 14:32:01 ... second, back to topics that are draft note publication blockers. Charles said further discussion fo 131 is not needed. let's move on to publish 14:32:13 ... no one else said they have publican blockers 14:32:38 Chris: let's pause on putting resolutions in irc w/out saying them. i think that 131 is a duplicate of 135 14:32:40 s/said further discussion fo 131/said further discussion of 130 14:32:56 .. i don't think we need a resolution .we have a path forward. any draft note blockers? 14:33:13 PROPOSAL: We should issue another draft Note after resolving #105 14:33:13 ... different proposal we should issue a draft note after resolving 105 14:33:15 +1 14:33:16 +1 14:33:16 +1 14:33:18 +1 14:33:19 +1 14:33:19 +1 14:33:21 +1 14:33:21 +1 14:33:22 +1 14:33:23 +1 to publishing an updated draft Note 14:33:24 +1 to issuing a draft note after resolving 105 14:33:26 +1 14:33:56 RESOLVED: we should issue another draft Note after resolving #105 14:34:00 Chris: not seeing any dissent. i'll call this resolved 14:34:02 +1 14:34:03 zakim, alllow each speaker 2 minutes 14:34:03 I don't understand 'alllow each speaker 2 minutes', cwilso 14:34:12 [Tantek leaves] 14:34:16 zakim, allow each speaker 2 minutes 14:34:16 ok, cwilso 14:34:25 agenda? 14:34:28 q? 14:34:34 ack next 14:34:35 Ralph, you wanted to discuss delete 14:34:48 ack next 14:34:50 florian, you wanted to respond to tantek 14:35:02 Florian: sorry for creating a side track. i thought deleting this was trivial so let's discuss later 14:35:16 ... just to note there's not full agreement about what should happen to editors draft not on TR 14:35:25 fantasai: that's a question for Process CG 14:35:36 Florian: not proposing to discuss, just get on the record we're not sure this is true 14:35:49 Chris: I believe your'e correct we don't have a policy on this 14:36:05 Fwiw, the Process says that documents intended for consumption outside the group maintaining them are supposed to live on w3.org 14:36:11 ... with that I think we have one other agenda issue 14:36:13 agenda? 14:36:22 So deleting things from GH should be fine because nobody should be publishing there :p 14:36:23 s/happen to editors draft not on TR/happen to editors draft of discontinued TR documents 14:36:29 ... Nigel is not here so I won't raise it. I thought we could clear it out. 14:36:45 ... we have no Draft note blockers. we're resolved to publish. next question is how to use time 14:37:00 .. should we go through issues from the top. to resolve before publishing a non draft note 14:37:10 qq+ 14:37:17 ... is there a difference between publishing what we need for Note and Statement 14:37:28 ack chaals 14:37:28 chaals, you wanted to react to florian 14:37:28 ... if we have the ok and AB consensus we can take to AC 14:37:54 Charles: the AB can publish what it wants to Statement. whether AC agrees is another thing. if AB agrees but not AC that's the obvious difference 14:38:07 +1 Chaals 14:38:14 ack chaals 14:38:17 Chris: difference in consensus. not sure AB would publish a group note, not draft note the AC would not have consents on 14:38:17 ack next 14:38:41 Ralph: Charles pointed out a process question. i think the decision for this group is what addiotn work might we think we want to do before publishing a "final" version on the Note 14:38:46 ... to be considered for proposal as statement 14:38:48 s/note the AC would not have consents on/note, that they don't expect the AC to have consensus on/ 14:39:02 q+ 14:39:05 ... i see a few issues marked as "needed for statement". we might look at those before we publish final best effort note for consideration 14:39:08 ack next 14:39:10 Chris: ok 14:39:35 Coralie: i think issue 126, smoke testing is unlikely to resolve in time for a "needed for" statement 14:39:43 qq+ 14:39:49 .. i don't think we can label as "needed for" statement. we haven't progressed enough to label as. the others are fine 14:40:15 ack cw 14:40:15 cwilso, you wanted to react to koalie 14:40:21 Chris: i will respond. i don't think we will fully,, it's an ongoing test. how will it apply in real world. i was trying to capture as is suggested, take whatever static level we get to in vision 14:40:46 ack next 14:40:49 .. apply to challenges and see if its' useful and premising it helps, we move on. i think we should try it out once before going to statement 14:40:50 [Coralie agrees with the concept of the issue] 14:41:03 Ralph: if i understand it makes sense. i'd seen it as a blocker to finall note 14:41:15 ditto Ralph 14:41:20 Chris: i think we should block going to final note until we do this. 14:41:27 q+ 14:41:29 ... if we're not going to do that though i can close the issue 14:41:35 ack next 14:41:51 Coralie: what Ralph just said. i thought it was a blocker. smoke testing is a good idea but not for this revision 14:42:03 q? 14:42:07 .. having read comments on this issue it seems we are not close to having a resolution. therefore we should defer and not close 14:42:13 s/I'd seen it as a blocker/I'd interpreted the name of the label as marking blockers 14:42:13 qq+ 14:42:17 q+ 14:42:23 ack next 14:42:24 chaals, you wanted to react to koalie 14:42:26 ... or narrow our definition. if we close it we might need to reopen as it's a good principle 14:42:30 +1 to koalie 14:42:59 Charles: I don't 'think we're ready to smoke test the document now. i do think that it's unlikely the AC will accept anything as a statement w/otu running that test for themselves 14:43:03 +1 chaals 14:43:21 ... it's unwise to convince them to do so w/out doing exercise and showing we did it. i suggest we leave this open 14:43:26 ack next 14:43:29 ... and saying we expect to do this 14:43:45 s/if i understand it makes sense/if i understand what you just said, Chris, it makes sense 14:43:50 Aram: i agree it's good to leave open. a good process to do. i think some confusion is whatever the process is not well defined 14:44:15 +1 Aram 14:44:19 ... maybe because i'm new but it might be good to define what we want to compare to and it would be good to write out. the process of the smoke testing better defined 14:44:23 +1 to Aram 14:44:58 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22propose+closing%22 14:44:59 Chris: a different tack to this. please go through and mark any issues. comment on bc i will go through and refactor labels as appropriate. the more input that goes into it the more i can guide 14:45:00 [+1 to Aram - would be good to be clearer about how we expect this to work before we claim we've done it. That seems like I am volunteering for an action item :S ] 14:45:09 .. I would like to start cleaning things out. that we've not looked at in a while 14:45:19 ... there are at least 2 that are easily handled. first 115 14:45:20 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/115 14:45:56 ... this i about reference to UN DHR in the vision. as DanA said, he filed it, since rights didn't make into vision anchoring in EWP is good enough 14:46:03 q- 14:46:05 ... anyone object, now is your chance 14:46:07 PROPOSAL: close #115 with no action 14:46:11 +1 14:46:11 +1 to close 115 14:46:17 +1 14:46:19 Chris: I think this is a good idea 14:46:26 +1 14:46:26 +1 to closing and leaving this to EWP 14:46:28 +1 14:46:31 +1 14:46:35 +1 14:46:35 +1 14:47:08 0 14:47:22 RESOLVED: close #115 14:47:33 0 (If we are leaving this to EWP, then I have a different issue as foreshadowed in issue comment, thus I'm not concerned about closing this one) 14:47:36 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/labels/propose%20closing 14:47:44 Chris: ok I'll close that 14:47:48 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/81 14:47:53 ... i want to skip around a small amount and go to #81 14:48:03 .. this was suggestion by JamesR we remove reference to EWP 14:48:20 ... I think it's important we do link to EWP and show we are having a progression of values in the vison 14:48:37 q+ 14:48:38 ... I think we should refer to EWP and build on them otherwise we'll have to pull them into the vison 14:48:46 ack next 14:48:53 +1 to close 81 (keep link to EWP) 14:49:02 q+ 14:49:02 q+ 14:49:10 ack next 14:49:20 ChrisN: does EWP also need to be a statement. linking to a draft might not be approrpraite 14:49:55 Charles: If we rely on EWP, included by reference. we need to be explicit that's what we're doing. it's a bit hand-wavey. the EWP its published on authority of TAG not W3C 14:50:02 q+ 14:50:10 ack next 14:50:14 ... if you close this ii'll raise an issue to say we should incorporate EWP to say how we handle that 14:50:24 q+ 14:50:36 qq+ to reply to Florian 14:50:47 Florain: EWP is informative of vision. i do not believe it's required that they be statement. as opposed to @ 14:50:48 ack next 14:50:49 chaals, you wanted to react to florian to reply to Florian 14:51:11 Charles: procedurally that's fine. conceptually we've resolved we wouldn't do stuff in this document because we rely it being in EWP 14:51:15 q+ 14:51:28 [in this case I concur with Florian; I find the Informative Reference to be both useful and appropriate] 14:51:29 ... we include EWP as if it's normative. it should be in a state where it's normative 14:51:44 ack next 14:51:50 ... bc we can't say this is covered in EWP. pointing at a document vaguely isn't sufficient 14:51:54 +1 chaals 14:52:23 +1 to Aram: if we want an "EWP should be a Statement" issue that is separate 14:52:24 Aram: makes sense to close this if we have a process for formality of EWP as a senate issue. we know TAG is to produce this and will be a formal state 14:52:39 s/senate/separate 14:52:52 .. and that is supporting vision. we can understand the TAG will produce this and it informs how W3C operates 14:53:00 ack next 14:53:08 .. if there's problem w/ formality of the EWP this isn't what the issue addresses so should be new issue 14:53:17 ack next 14:53:18 Chris: I know TAG has goal of publishing as Statement 14:53:36 PLH: it's a little awkward to have this ref. out of 7 points, this is the only external reference 14:53:57 ... we don't try to define what it means to be royalty free. nor PP. here's it linking to one definition of EWP 14:54:23 ... trying to make sure it's precisely defined 14:54:47 ... other items we don't try to say what we mean. we don' need to say every detail of the web to define vision. we shouldn't try to define the @ platform 14:55:09 fantaasi: you're referencing the older version. new one doesn't reference sustainability 14:55:11 https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision 14:55:20 s/fantaasi:/fantasai: 14:55:31 ... I think that's the confusion but it applies to a previous version 14:55:43 qq+ to note that the issue isn't about defining what EWP means, it is about whether we agree that those principles as written are effectively part of the vision. 14:55:51 ack next 14:55:52 ... reference in intro is fine. awkwardly phrased, could be redone but it's ok 14:55:53 chaals, you wanted to react to plh to note that the issue isn't about defining what EWP means, it is about whether we agree that those principles as written are effectively part of 14:55:53 ... the vision. 14:56:16 Charles: the point is that the issue is not whether EWP is defined or clear. but whether we agree all stuff in EWP is part of this document 14:56:16 s/reference sustainability/reference definition of sustainability/ 14:56:30 .. this document sort of says it is. we need to be more explicit about that. we need to make a decision 14:56:44 ...we can't rely on TAG to do it. we can say we'll copy and paste it here. 14:56:49 q? 14:56:53 q+ 14:57:05 ... AC might argue on EWP. we can say let TAG argue. one way or another we'll need to address before AC agrees to make a statement 14:57:07 q+ 14:57:08 ack next 14:57:19 s/we can't/we can/ 14:57:24 q+ 14:57:26 +1 Aram 14:57:38 q- later 14:57:40 +1 Aram 14:57:41 Aram: I do think it's the core of issue 81. do we trust the TAG to produce EWP we feel comfortable including in this document. if we do, we should close this issue and raise other procedural issues 14:57:41 ack next 14:57:44 +1 to Aram 14:58:08 Florian: I heard ppl saying "including EWP" that's not it. we're referring to it. it's not normative 14:58:11 ...we are not including it 14:58:20 fantasai: it's ambiguous 14:58:23 q+ 14:58:28 Vision currently states "These core values will be clearly demonstrated by how W3C leads the Web forward: by being inclusive, principled, and continually striving to make the Web better through these principles and the Ethical Web Principles. " 14:58:32 PROPOSAL. Close #81 with no action; vision will refer to EWP at least informatively. 14:58:46 Chris: we are referencing it. saying it exists. i'd like to suggest that want to get at the core of this. leave as is, or remove EWP 14:58:52 Apologize for my phrasing, I did mean referring to it. 14:58:56 +1 to referencing EWP 14:58:59 +1 15:00:06 fantasai: 2 points. intro and statement to w3c 15:00:06 .. both need work but i don't think we need to remove. ok to close issue 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 ... we did remove references that might have triggered the issue to be filed 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 s/statement to w3c/Vision of W3C/ 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 +1 to retaining the text and reference as-is for publishing a new draft Note 15:00:06 ack cw 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 +1 15:00:06 +1 to closing the issue 15:00:11 -1 IIMHO there is a clear assumption that the EWP underpins this document. That either means "it's vaguely interesting but we don't stand by it", which IMHO is very poor document structure, or "we mean the thing in its entirety" which is the essence of a normative reference 15:00:13 RESOLVED. Close #81 with no action; vision will refer to EWP at least informatively. 15:00:21 Chris: will call that resolved 15:00:24 s/.. both/... both references need work/ 15:00:57 ... Charles I think your'e asking for a better def of how this builds on that. i'd rather file that as a separate issue. no one is saying remove issue but we will need to deal w/ formality o the document 15:00:57 ack cpn 15:01:06 +1 to filing follow-up issue to improve the way that EWP is referenced 15:01:08 Agree chaals concern makes sense to address as a separate ticket. 15:01:21 Chris: we are over time so let's call this adjourned. thanks all! 15:01:24 thanks all 15:01:25 Chaals: works for me. 15:01:43 amy: I think this is a great document, thanks everyone for the work 15:01:53 i/amy: /scribe+ 15:02:18 zakim, end meeting 15:02:18 As of this point the attendees have been amy, Avneesh, Florian, PLH, Chris, ChrisN, AvneeshSingh, Ralph, wendyreid, Coralie, tantek, gendler, AramZS, Dingwei, ! 15:02:21 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:02:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/28-vision-minutes.html Zakim 15:02:30 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:02:30 Zakim has left #vision 15:04:48 present= Amyvdh, Wendy_Reid, Chris_Wilson, Florian_Rivoal, PLH, Coralie_Mercier, Chris_Needham, Ralph_Swick, Elika_Etemad(fantasai), Tantek_Celik, Max+Gendler, Avneesh_Singh, Song_Xu, chaals_Nevile, Ding_Wei, Aram_Zucker-Scharff, Eric_Meyer 15:04:52 RRSagent, make minutes 15:04:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/28-vision-minutes.html koalie 15:05:10 regrets: Tzviya_Siegman 15:05:12 RRSagent, make minutes 15:05:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/28-vision-minutes.html koalie