14:00:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:00:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/11-w3process-irc
14:00:24 <cwilso> present+
14:00:28 <cwilso> present+ florian
14:00:50 <cwilso> present+ dingwei
14:02:12 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html
14:02:36 <fantasai> scribenick: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review
14:02:40 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
14:02:42 <fantasai> Topic: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review
14:03:18 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
14:03:33 <florian> q+
14:03:54 <fantasai> florian: We had agreed to merge these, missed cycle, so we should do these
14:03:58 <fantasai> Subtopic: Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on their own Decisions
14:04:07 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/749
14:04:23 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761
14:04:46 <fantasai> florian: This is not excluding TAG and AB from Councils on what they do, but only from a vote if it comes down to a vote
14:04:55 <fantasai> florian: This is a PR with an option, there is a question in the phrasing
14:04:55 <Dingwei_> Dingwei_ has joined #w3process
14:05:20 <fantasai> florian: proposed text is if it the decision/proposal originated from TAG then members of that group must abstain from the group OR members of the group *at the time*
14:05:36 <fantasai> florian: I have a slight preference for keeping the fuller version, because it fully covers what we intend to do
14:05:44 <fantasai> florian: but it's more complicated to express
14:05:59 <cwilso> q+
14:05:59 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761/files
14:06:15 <fantasai> cwilso: Either way is OK with me, but slight preference to keep the bracketed text
14:06:18 <florian> s/complicated to express/complicated to express, and the difference may not be all that important/
14:06:33 <fantasai> PROPOSAL: Merge PR including bracketed text
14:06:34 <cwilso> +1
14:06:35 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-10-11 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/74b08985-d615-46d4-a52c-da0071b133c1/?recurrenceId=20231011T070000
14:06:36 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-09-27 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html
14:06:38 <TallTed> +1
14:06:39 <florian> +1
14:06:54 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-10-11 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html
14:06:59 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR761 including bracketed text
14:07:10 <fantasai> Subtopic: Require reporting of dismissal vote countes
14:07:20 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748
14:07:29 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760
14:07:37 <cwilso> q+
14:07:38 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760/files
14:07:45 <fantasai> florian: Still looks good to me as a month ago :)
14:07:59 <fantasai> cwilso: Issue filed was for something else and AB decided to do something different that sort-of touches the same spot
14:08:07 <florian> s/as a month/ as months/
14:08:10 <fantasai> cwilso: Not clear whether this resolves the issue or is a different optimization
14:08:19 <fantasai> cwilso: issue filer didn't ever weigh in after AB resolution
14:08:30 <cwilso> ack me
14:08:47 <fantasai> See https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-05-24-doc#issue-15A
14:08:52 <fantasai> 15A, 15B, 16
14:09:01 <fantasai> fantasai: This is covered in the DoC.
14:09:32 <fantasai> fantasai: I split it into sub-issues in DoC
14:09:47 <fantasai> fantasai: Goal of the commenters was to increase confidence in the Council
14:10:05 <fantasai> fantasai: we decided to do that through transparency instead of changing vote thresholds
14:10:27 <fantasai> florian: Did something different from what was requirements, but contradicting requests, so we did the best to address what was asked
14:10:43 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm OK with the change, it wasn't clear if this resolves their concern or if we think this is necessary to increase transparency
14:10:50 <fantasai> florian: You can't do both what Mark and what Nigel wanted :)
14:12:05 <florian> q+
14:12:54 <fantasai> fantasai: Going back up to what the commenters wanted, they wanted confidence that the dismissal process was something they could trust in
14:13:03 <fantasai> fantasai: in general, we've not had much dissent in the dismissal process (if at all)
14:13:32 <fantasai> fantasai: so showing that makes it clear to the AC how much consensus there was in the Council about its composition, and the confidence the Council has in its membership
14:13:54 <Dingwei> Dingwei has joined #w3process
14:13:54 <fantasai> florian: Regardless of whether Mark or Nigel or both are satisfied, I still think it's a good change, so we should land it
14:14:08 <fantasai> florian: maybe that will be enough, maybe there will be follow up, but either way let's do it
14:14:22 <fantasai> PROPOSAL: Merge PR 760
14:14:30 <TallTed> +1
14:14:34 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 760
14:14:46 <fantasai> Topic: Substantive PRs to Review
14:14:55 <fantasai> Subtopic: CR Snapshots need to address wide review issues
14:15:11 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/781
14:15:14 <joshco> joshco has joined #w3process
14:15:23 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787
14:15:40 <fantasai> fantasai: People inside the group can object to publishing a CRS, but people outside the group can be ignored indefinitely
14:15:45 <florian> q+
14:15:52 <fantasai> fantasai: so this trying to fix this by giving the Team some discretion in denying a CRS
14:16:19 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787/files
14:16:20 <florian> fantasai: we already have CRD, which people can publish at will
14:16:47 <fantasai> florian: Fact that ppl can ignore issues is not true for transition requests (changing stage)
14:17:24 <fantasai> florian: This doesn't make it a requirement to address all the issues, but sets expectation that you should make some progress on such issues, and allows Team to deny CRS if not
14:17:34 <florian> fantasai: any other opinion?
14:18:04 <fantasai> TallTed: Just one grammar fix
14:18:22 <fantasai> florian: pre-existing wording, but could fix as we go?
14:18:34 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Merge PR 787
14:18:36 <TallTed> +1
14:18:45 <florian> +1, including TallTed's tweak
14:18:46 <cwilso> +1
14:18:49 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 787
14:19:00 <fantasai> Subtopic: Default custodianship for Registries if custodian no longer available
14:19:14 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/699
14:19:19 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790
14:19:30 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files
14:19:35 <fantasai> florian: We have notion of a registry custodian
14:19:49 <TallTed> q+
14:19:49 <fantasai> ... when a WG sets up a registry, they describe the tables etc. but also who has the ability to update it
14:20:05 <fantasai> ... can be WG itself, coudl be a CG, could be the Team
14:20:08 <fantasai> ... But what happens if that body ceases to exist?
14:20:13 <fantasai> ... if you still have a WG around, you can fix it
14:20:46 <fantasai> ... but if no WG?
14:20:46 <fantasai> ... This empowers the Team to propose to the AC a new custodian
14:20:46 <fantasai> ... otherwise have to spin up a new WG to make the revision
14:21:00 <fantasai> TallTed: As I understand, there would only be one custodian, so should be "the custodian" vs "a custodian"
14:21:02 <florian> q+
14:21:25 <fantasai> florian: Interesting nuance is that we anticipate that although it might be uncommon, the rules allow a registry to contain multiple tables, and possible for each table could have a different custodian
14:21:31 <fantasai> ... allowed by the rules, though unlikely
14:21:46 <fantasai> TallTed: My concern is that it's the last custodian of a given segment
14:22:19 <fantasai> florian: When we were preparing this, the way fantasai said to think of it was that if multiple groups are empowered to update a table, then collectively those groups are the custodian
14:22:19 <fantasai> florian: I suspect in practice it won't make a difference
14:22:45 <fantasai> [discussion of this grammar point]
14:23:06 <florian> fantasai: we allowed each table to have a different custodian
14:23:24 <florian> fantasai: but for each table, the custodian could be a person, a group, a set of groups…
14:24:01 <fantasai> TallTed: I'd like to take a stab at rephrasing, so let's not merge today
14:24:02 <florian> fantasai: so a registry could have multiple tables, each with a different custodian, and some of those custodians might be sets of multiple groups
14:24:33 <fantasai> florian: that's fair. I think your concern is, for a particular table we allow group A or group B, then no need to replace one that's gone since still one active custodian
14:25:01 <fantasai> fantasai: if we can do that without making the phrasing overcomplicated...
14:25:09 <fantasai> florian: alternatively, remove notion of custodian per table
14:25:21 <fantasai> TallTed: I think the more complicated handling is probably going to happen, given where some groups are going
14:25:57 <fantasai> fantasai: do we want to resolve to merge with editorial tweaks delegated to editors / Ted?
14:26:03 <fantasai> TallTed, florian: seems fine
14:26:19 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks
14:26:33 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks
14:26:45 <fantasai> Topic: Editorial PRs to Review
14:26:51 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify what TAG+AB “approval” means:
14:27:00 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/741
14:27:10 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788
14:27:23 <florian> fantasai: we didn't specificy what we mean by "approval" in approval of TAG+AB
14:27:29 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788/files
14:27:33 <florian> fantasai: we meant according to their usual rules
14:27:40 <florian> fantasai: so this PR clarifies that
14:27:56 <fantasai> TallTed: Decision by each of TAG and AB?
14:27:58 <fantasai> fantasai: yes
14:28:17 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Merge PR788
14:28:19 <florian> +1
14:28:23 <cwilso> +1
14:28:25 <TallTed> +1 with editorial tweak
14:28:25 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR788
14:28:31 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify that registering an FO triggers process to address it
14:28:37 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/739
14:28:42 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789
14:29:10 <florian> fantasai: this is about the fact that it wasn't clear that filing an FO triggers the process to handle FOs
14:29:12 <fantasai> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789/files
14:29:20 <florian> fantasai: so we added a sentence to make that more explicit
14:29:43 <fantasai> florian: Original text, if you read the process for handling them, it has a deadline from the registration date of the FO
14:29:57 <fantasai> florian: but didn't hook up explicitly from the FO filing section
14:30:23 <fantasai> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#registering-objections
14:31:15 <fantasai> TallTed: "filing" an FO doesn't trigger handling though
14:31:22 <fantasai> fantasai: process uses registration
14:31:41 <fantasai> florian: There is a difference between filing and registering, but once a thing has been filed, it will become registered at the end of the AC Review period
14:31:48 <fantasai> florian: Process describes deadlines relative to registration
14:32:44 <fantasai> TallTed: good enough
14:32:51 <fantasai> PROPOSAL: Merge PR 789
14:32:59 <TallTed> +1
14:33:03 <florian> +1
14:33:05 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 789
14:33:13 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Discuss
14:33:20 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals
14:33:28 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/786
14:33:42 <fantasai> florian: mnot raised an interesting set of questions related to disciplinary action by CEO
14:34:01 <fantasai> florian: One is, Process says that decisions can be appealed, and if we don't say how, you can raise an FO
14:34:12 <fantasai> ... given that there's no such specific wording about disciplinary action by CEO
14:34:24 <fantasai> ... means that such action can be appealed through FO
14:34:32 <fantasai> ... That seems to be the impilication of the Process
14:34:40 <fantasai> ... Is a Council the right way to deal with such appeals?
14:34:58 <fantasai> ... Should we set up something else? Should we say they can't be appealed?
14:35:30 <fantasai> florian: Mark also raised another question, it's not obvious that the Process gives CEO power to terminate an organization (rather than an individual)
14:35:43 <fantasai> ... and I would agree that the Process currently doesn't say anything about that, but maybe should think about that
14:35:53 <fantasai> ... and involve the Board about it
14:36:23 <florian> fantasai: spinning up a council for disciplinary action is probably not the best thing to do
14:36:33 <florian> fantasai: so if we want an appeals process, we should come up with something else
14:36:42 <florian> fantasai: two options I can think of:
14:36:46 <florian> fantasai: a) appeal to the Board
14:36:55 <florian> fantasai: b) appeal to the AB
14:37:12 <cwilso> q+
14:37:26 <fantasai> cwilso: Given this is Membership...
14:37:29 <fantasai> fantasai: this is individual
14:37:29 <florian> fantasai: probably a question for the AB, but maybe people here have thoughts
14:37:35 <fantasai> florian: both were raised
14:37:41 <fantasai> cwilso: even for individuals, this is a decision of the CEO
14:37:48 <fantasai> ... I think it's more appropriate to appeal to Board
14:37:53 <fantasai> ... I agree appealing to Council doesn't feel appropriate
14:38:02 <florian> q+
14:38:05 <fantasai> ... I'm not sure we can do much here without changing things like Member agreement?
14:38:18 <fantasai> florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively includes the Process
14:38:38 <fantasai> ... that's the only way to effectively change the Member agreement, for not-new members
14:38:45 <fantasai> ... [missed]
14:38:53 <fantasai> ... My read of Process is that currently it is the Council, but that's not great
14:38:59 <fantasai> ... so probably pushing that to the Board or AB is a good idea
14:39:02 <fantasai> ... we should ask both
14:39:23 <fantasai> florian: wrt establishing a way to dismiss organizations, in practice could do it in the Process, but would want to ask Board input on that
14:40:20 <florian> fantasai: on the question of dismissing an org, it should be a decision by the board, probably by supermajority, only revertible by a a supermajority of the board
14:40:28 <florian> fantasai: AB or TAG shouldn't be able to do that
14:41:12 <florian> fantasai: also we have to make sure that termination of membership in Process terms is synced with termination in bylaws terms
14:41:20 <florian> fantasai: would be weird to have a disconnect
14:41:24 <florian> fantasai: but this is for the board
14:41:47 <fantasai> florian: I agree, we should probably log an action item to take the Board part to the Board
14:41:49 <cwilso> +1 Florian
14:42:05 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the Board
14:42:17 <fantasai> florian: for individual disciplinary action appeal, take that question to the AB
14:42:58 <fantasai> ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal issue to the AB
14:43:06 <fantasai> Subtopic: Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member
14:43:11 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/784
14:43:14 <florian> q+
14:43:46 <fantasai> florian: Narrow version of issue is, by being a TAG member, TimBL becomes one of the set of people that need to be unanimous for the short circuit of the Council to be used
14:44:01 <fantasai> florian: this was not intended, and seems unfortunate that TimBl is on the critical path of a short circuit
14:44:14 <fantasai> florian: One solution is to make a specific exception there, and say that TimBL can abstain
14:45:00 <fantasai> florian: Another option is that, while TAG works mostly works by consensus, they do vote on e.g. chairs. And maybe we don't need to include TimBL on those? So posibly we could make him a lifetime guest of the TAG, or other special status
14:45:08 <fantasai> ... then not a formal member of the TAG, so not a part of votes
14:45:42 <fantasai> florian: Ideally we'd get TimBL's feedback on it, but just want to make sure he's not formally tied in in places not intended
14:45:50 <fantasai> ... but input welcome
14:46:14 <fantasai> florian: extra piece of info: even in case of Council that doesn't use short circuit, TimBl has chosen not to participate
14:46:28 <fantasai> ... so not being a formal member of the TAG, he would no longer be invited to Councils; but so far he has chosen to stay away
14:46:40 <fantasai> ... I suspect he intends this way and not an accident
14:46:50 <fantasai> ... if you refer to the speech he made in Sophia-Antipolis last spring
14:47:04 <fantasai> ... he explicitly reassured everyone that it's OK that we make decisions without him
14:47:12 <TallTed> q+
14:47:17 <fantasai> ... so making him a Director-emeritus invited to TAG for life matches his expectation better
14:47:39 <florian> s/so making him/so I think making him
14:47:45 <fantasai> TallTed: I agree it appears he doesn't intend to participate, but maybe related to the issues that were raised
14:47:54 <fantasai> ... would be good to have explicit confirmation of what he intends
14:47:58 <fantasai> ... I'm OK with him going either way
14:48:06 <Dingwei> +1
14:48:10 <fantasai> ... but some concerns due to indeterminate fate of SOLID WG
14:48:36 <fantasai> ... which he's definitely interested in, unclear whether he'll play his W3C role
14:48:48 <fantasai> florian: I think plh took an action to check with him, but haven't heard back
14:50:06 <fantasai> fantasai: Got two options, should we draft one (which one) or draft both, and ask him?
14:50:22 <fantasai> florian: We could draft both, and give him the option in one shot
14:50:40 <fantasai> fantasai: any other ideas?
14:51:09 <fantasai> florian: A possible third path, keep him as a formal member of TAG, but to broaden the exception to not just short-circuits, but not include him in the Councils in general
14:51:33 <fantasai> fantasai: maybe we go for all three then?
14:51:36 <cwilso> +1
14:51:44 <fantasai> ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim
14:51:54 <fantasai> Topic: Any Other Business
14:52:18 <fantasai> Meeting closed.