Meeting minutes
PRs to Discuss
Github: w3c/
florian: there are alternatives that I'd like feedback on
https://
[line 4650]
TallTed: any registry need to have multiples tables and may have multiple custodian
TallTed: see https://
TallTed: I can live with either proposal
florian: both phrasing works
… I does make sense
<joshco> discussing comment https://
fantasai: how about "f the custodian of a registry table ..."
TallTed: it's viable but once it's discovered that any table have a custodian, it makes sense to address all at once
fantasai: let's take the shorter wording
TallTed: if it's meant to address each table at a time, you'll have to this process for each table
[some back-n-forth on wording]
<joshco> tallted: we should either cover the unusual, corner case or not
<joshco> plh: would doing a survey to replace custodians for a given table, would this be an appropriate use of process. yes.
<joshco> florian: suggests simpler wording
Ted: I'm fine with "If the [=custodian=] of a [=registry table=]"
[and we'll take the rest of Ted suggestion]
[and remove the the words after unresponsive on the last line]
RESOLUTION: merge #790 after making the tweaks
Issues to Discuss
#574
<joshco> Github: w3c/
<joshco> plh: where are we? are we ready for a pull request?
Florian: PSIG and AB are fine with not defining order of precedence
fantasai: let's close the issue with noaction and re-open if we get new information
<joshco> fantasai: suggest closing the issue and see what comes
RESOLUTION: close issue #574 and related pending PRs with no change
<joshco> Github: w3c/
ACTION: florian to review PR 572 to see if there is any editorial bit to salvage before closing
#794
florian: TAG had a charter and we agreed to supercede it. the Process still refers to it and we should remove those.
… if something else needs to happen, file a separate
<TallTed> +1 editorial
RESOLUTION: the editor will deal with #794 and solve it on their own.
#797
Github: w3c/
fantasai: 2 issues: first, do we need AC review to close a group early. second, what do we need to close the group out of charter?
florian: in my view, trying to close a group early isn't a good idea
… we need maintenance
… having a group sitting around isn't harmful
<joshco> florian: we dont need to add reason "group is done" to the process
<TallTed> "charter expired" differs from "the group is done"; "the group is done" is "they've produced their documents"
<joshco> ... charter expiration means a group close
<joshco> plh: right now, if the charter has expired, there is no reason for an ac review decision. if it has not expired and the reason for seeking closure is lack of resources, then there is a need for review/decision
RESOLUTION: Case 2 (closure after charter expired) is a discussion related to chartering and needs to be addressed as part of that discussion
plh: Case 1: closure before the charter expires. do we need an AC review?
florian: for PAG outcome, we ought to because the Patent Policy itself also calls for one, and I don't think we should change that
fantasai: and for the others as well
… we may get good feedback
<joshco> plh: when closing a group with an unexpired charter, the ac review can serve as a trigger to cause objection/agreement
plh: I wouldn't wait for a 5% threshold to get reached to close a group
fantasai: that's an issue for the team to decide
RESOLUTION: case 1 (closure when the charter is not expired) still needs AC review
#735
plh: 2 extremes: once the AC review is closed, we need to publish the FO. OR once the Council publishes its report
florian: somewhere in between
fantasai: you don't need to publish right away, but don't wait
<joshco> Github: w3c/
<joshco> 1 min left
Florian: I agree with Jeffrey that there is a problem, but not sure how to fix
fantasai: we need to draft specific wording "soon after the close of AC review" or something like that.
… having it in the process sets the proper expectation
[we need editors to propose a pull request]
Next meeting
plh: November 22