– DRAFT –
Process CG

scribenick: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review

Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review

florian: We had agreed to merge these, missed cycle, so we should do these

Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on their own Decisions

github: w3c/w3process#749

PR: w3c/w3process#761

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

florian: This is a PR with an option, there is a question in the phrasing

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*

florian: I have a slight preference for keeping the fuller version, because it fully covers what we intend to do

florian: but it's more complicated to express, and the difference may not be all that important

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761/files

cwilso: Either way is OK with me, but slight preference to keep the bracketed text

PROPOSAL: Merge PR including bracketed text

<cwilso> +1

<TallTed> +1

<florian> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR761 including bracketed text

Require reporting of dismissal vote countes

github: w3c/w3process#748

PR: w3c/w3process#760

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760/files

florian: Still looks good to me as months ago :)

cwilso: Issue filed was for something else and AB decided to do something different that sort-of touches the same spot

cwilso: Not clear whether this resolves the issue or is a different optimization

cwilso: issue filer didn't ever weigh in after AB resolution

See https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-05-24-doc#issue-15A

15A, 15B, 16

fantasai: This is covered in the DoC.

fantasai: I split it into sub-issues in DoC

fantasai: Goal of the commenters was to increase confidence in the Council

fantasai: we decided to do that through transparency instead of changing vote thresholds

florian: Did something different from what was requirements, but contradicting requests, so we did the best to address what was asked

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

florian: You can't do both what Mark and what Nigel wanted :)

fantasai: Going back up to what the commenters wanted, they wanted confidence that the dismissal process was something they could trust in

fantasai: in general, we've not had much dissent in the dismissal process (if at all)

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

florian: Regardless of whether Mark or Nigel or both are satisfied, I still think it's a good change, so we should land it

florian: maybe that will be enough, maybe there will be follow up, but either way let's do it

PROPOSAL: Merge PR 760

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 760

Substantive PRs to Review

CR Snapshots need to address wide review issues

github: w3c/w3process#781

PR: w3c/w3process#787

fantasai: People inside the group can object to publishing a CRS, but people outside the group can be ignored indefinitely

fantasai: so this trying to fix this by giving the Team some discretion in denying a CRS

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787/files

<florian> fantasai: we already have CRD, which people can publish at will

florian: Fact that ppl can ignore issues is not true for transition requests (changing stage)

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

<florian> fantasai: any other opinion?

TallTed: Just one grammar fix

florian: pre-existing wording, but could fix as we go?

PROPOSED: Merge PR 787

<TallTed> +1

<florian> +1, including TallTed's tweak

<cwilso> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 787

Default custodianship for Registries if custodian no longer available

github: w3c/w3process#699

PR: w3c/w3process#790

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files

florian: We have notion of a registry custodian
… when a WG sets up a registry, they describe the tables etc. but also who has the ability to update it
… can be WG itself, coudl be a CG, could be the Team
… But what happens if that body ceases to exist?
… if you still have a WG around, you can fix it
… but if no WG?
… This empowers the Team to propose to the AC a new custodian
… otherwise have to spin up a new WG to make the revision

TallTed: As I understand, there would only be one custodian, so should be "the custodian" vs "a custodian"

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
… allowed by the rules, though unlikely

TallTed: My concern is that it's the last custodian of a given segment

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

florian: I suspect in practice it won't make a difference

[discussion of this grammar point]

<florian> fantasai: we allowed each table to have a different custodian

<florian> fantasai: but for each table, the custodian could be a person, a group, a set of groups…

TallTed: I'd like to take a stab at rephrasing, so let's not merge today

<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

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

fantasai: if we can do that without making the phrasing overcomplicated...

florian: alternatively, remove notion of custodian per table

TallTed: I think the more complicated handling is probably going to happen, given where some groups are going

fantasai: do we want to resolve to merge with editorial tweaks delegated to editors / Ted?

TallTed, florian: seems fine

PROPOSED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks

Editorial PRs to Review

Clarify what TAG+AB “approval” means:

github: w3c/w3process#741

PR: w3c/w3process#788

<florian> fantasai: we didn't specificy what we mean by "approval" in approval of TAG+AB

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788/files

<florian> fantasai: we meant according to their usual rules

<florian> fantasai: so this PR clarifies that

TallTed: Decision by each of TAG and AB?

fantasai: yes

PROPOSED: Merge PR788

<florian> +1

<cwilso> +1

<TallTed> +1 with editorial tweak

RESOLUTION: Merge PR788

Clarify that registering an FO triggers process to address it

github: w3c/w3process#739

PR: w3c/w3process#789

<florian> fantasai: this is about the fact that it wasn't clear that filing an FO triggers the process to handle FOs

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789/files

<florian> fantasai: so we added a sentence to make that more explicit

florian: Original text, if you read the process for handling them, it has a deadline from the registration date of the FO

florian: but didn't hook up explicitly from the FO filing section

https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#registering-objections

TallTed: "filing" an FO doesn't trigger handling though

fantasai: process uses registration

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

florian: Process describes deadlines relative to registration

TallTed: good enough

PROPOSAL: Merge PR 789

<TallTed> +1

<florian> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 789

Issues to Discuss

Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals

github: w3c/w3process#786

florian: mnot raised an interesting set of questions related to disciplinary action by CEO

florian: One is, Process says that decisions can be appealed, and if we don't say how, you can raise an FO
… given that there's no such specific wording about disciplinary action by CEO
… means that such action can be appealed through FO
… That seems to be the impilication of the Process
… Is a Council the right way to deal with such appeals?
… Should we set up something else? Should we say they can't be appealed?

florian: Mark also raised another question, it's not obvious that the Process gives CEO power to terminate an organization (rather than an individual)
… and I would agree that the Process currently doesn't say anything about that, but maybe should think about that
… and involve the Board about it

<florian> fantasai: spinning up a council for disciplinary action is probably not the best thing to do

<florian> fantasai: so if we want an appeals process, we should come up with something else

<florian> fantasai: two options I can think of:

<florian> fantasai: a) appeal to the Board

<florian> fantasai: b) appeal to the AB

cwilso: Given this is Membership...

fantasai: this is individual

<florian> fantasai: probably a question for the AB, but maybe people here have thoughts

florian: both were raised

cwilso: even for individuals, this is a decision of the CEO
… I think it's more appropriate to appeal to Board
… I agree appealing to Council doesn't feel appropriate
… I'm not sure we can do much here without changing things like Member agreement?

florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively includes the Process
… that's the only way to effectively change the Member agreement, for not-new members
… [missed]
… My read of Process is that currently it is the Council, but that's not great
… so probably pushing that to the Board or AB is a good idea
… we should ask both

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

<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

<florian> fantasai: AB or TAG shouldn't be able to do that

<florian> fantasai: also we have to make sure that termination of membership in Process terms is synced with termination in bylaws terms

<florian> fantasai: would be weird to have a disconnect

<florian> fantasai: but this is for the board

florian: I agree, we should probably log an action item to take the Board part to the Board

<cwilso> +1 Florian

ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the Board

florian: for individual disciplinary action appeal, take that question to the AB

ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal issue to the AB

Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member

github: w3c/w3process#784

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

florian: this was not intended, and seems unfortunate that TimBl is on the critical path of a short circuit

florian: One solution is to make a specific exception there, and say that TimBL can abstain

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
… then not a formal member of the TAG, so not a part of votes

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
… but input welcome

florian: extra piece of info: even in case of Council that doesn't use short circuit, TimBl has chosen not to participate
… 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
… I suspect he intends this way and not an accident
… if you refer to the speech he made in Sophia-Antipolis last spring
… he explicitly reassured everyone that it's OK that we make decisions without him
… so I think making him a Director-emeritus invited to TAG for life matches his expectation better

TallTed: I agree it appears he doesn't intend to participate, but maybe related to the issues that were raised
… would be good to have explicit confirmation of what he intends
… I'm OK with him going either way

<Dingwei> +1

TallTed: but some concerns due to indeterminate fate of SOLID WG
… which he's definitely interested in, unclear whether he'll play his W3C role

florian: I think plh took an action to check with him, but haven't heard back

fantasai: Got two options, should we draft one (which one) or draft both, and ask him?

florian: We could draft both, and give him the option in one shot

fantasai: any other ideas?

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

fantasai: maybe we go for all three then?

<cwilso> +1

ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim

Any Other Business

Meeting closed.