15:02:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:02:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-w3process-irc
15:02:48 <cwilso> present+
15:02:55 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
15:03:32 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2024-01-24 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Jan/0001.html
15:03:55 <nigel> nigel has joined #w3process
15:04:01 <fantasai> plh: [reviews agenda]
15:04:15 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Jan/0001.html
15:04:47 <nigel> present+ Nigel_Megitt
15:05:32 <fantasai> plh: Florian and I triaged the issues and have some ideas about charter review, so wanted to go over that
15:05:55 <fantasai> plh: AC is meeting in April. We need to report on our progress there.
15:06:06 <fantasai> florian: Wrt charter thing, I'm hoping to discuss next week, so good to get to it before that.
15:06:21 <fantasai> florian: so let's not get stuck on the issues/PRs
15:07:07 <fantasai> [agenda adjustments]
15:07:12 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests to Review
15:07:22 <joshco> joshco has joined #w3process
15:07:23 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify FO publication timing
15:07:41 <fantasai> florian: There's a requirement that FOs are made public, but there was no deadline
15:07:58 <fantasai> ... PR sets that up in the Process, but not in a great amount of detail
15:08:11 <fantasai> ... You have to publish before Council starts
15:08:25 <fantasai> ... if FO is resolved, then that changes situation, but if not you have to publish
15:08:35 <fantasai> ... additional guidance is proposed to the Guide
15:08:52 <fantasai> plh: We discussed the approach last time
15:08:57 <fantasai> plh: Are we OK with the approach in 808?
15:09:04 <fantasai> florian: Note Tantek approved the changes in GH
15:09:26 <fantasai> plh: Let's review PR against the guide
15:09:33 <fantasai> plh: I expect this group to get more involved in /Guide as well
15:09:39 <nigel> Just noting that sadly I did not have time to review the changes to FO publication timing
15:10:13 <fantasai> plh: I don't want e.g. us to put things in the Proess because /Guide isn't in scope
15:10:27 <fantasai> plh: We didn't want to put anything in stone, but wanted to give Team some guidance
15:10:37 <fantasai> Process changes -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/808/files
15:10:49 <fantasai> Guide changes -> https://github.com/w3c/Guide/pull/222
15:11:02 <fantasai> plh: First guidance is that all FOs need to be published, so that we have the history
15:11:19 <fantasai> ... Second, if WG needs to discuss, then we need to make the FO public
15:12:08 <fantasai> ... WG participants do not necessarily have Member access (although this situation will become less common due to IE access changes)
15:12:29 <fantasai> ... Next, we should avoid unnecessary attention on a Member, to avoid what happened with DID objection, where only one of 3 objecting Members published their FO in public.
15:12:40 <fantasai> ... Now, we should systematically publish all the FOs anonymized
15:12:59 <fantasai> florian: The text doesn't say that, it says only anonymize systematically for trivial FOs
15:13:34 <fantasai> ... for the case you talk about it, it's not trivial. The text doesn't say one way or another
15:14:26 <fantasai> ... the next point is about that, and it says that if an FO is made public by one Member, then publish the rest, to avoid one Member getting all the flak. But doesn't say anything about attribution
15:14:35 <fantasai> plh: Lastly, we need to follow up with resolution of the FO
15:14:40 <fantasai> ... this is all meant for /Guide
15:14:49 <fantasai> ... I haven't seen any comments in the issue for the past 2 weeks
15:15:02 <fantasai> ... so my sense is PR is good as-is, unless anyone here has a comment
15:15:45 <fantasai> plh: I think we can close the issue now?
15:15:59 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 808
15:16:10 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue 735
15:16:48 <fantasai> Subtopic: Reduce confusion wrt registry sections
15:17:00 <fantasai> Issue -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/800
15:17:08 <fantasai> PR -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/807
15:17:32 <fantasai> nigel: My context is implementing embedded registry in a spec
15:17:46 <fantasai> nigel: I like all the changes in the PR, but I think some more changes need to be made
15:17:58 <fantasai> ... to clarify what a registry actually is
15:18:12 <fantasai> ... "associated parts" isn't clear if they form the registry or are associated with it
15:18:21 <fantasai> ... is a registry definition in an embedded registry?
15:18:49 <fantasai> ... I think we landed on, any change in to the registry definition would be subjet o same change process as any other normative changes to the technical report
15:18:53 <fantasai> ... but I don't think that's clear?
15:19:09 <fantasai> ... also, registry definition tells you change process with the registry table
15:19:19 <fantasai> ... but what are rules about changes to the definition?
15:19:44 <fantasai> florian: I think the answer to your question is in the document, but maybe it's not obvious
15:19:56 <fantasai> ... to write a registry definition, you write text in a REC. Therefore the normal rules of a REC apply.
15:20:05 <fantasai> ... and in a standalone document, those same rules apply
15:20:20 <fantasai> ... I think the Process doc normatively says that; but whether easy to say that, maybe not
15:20:44 <fantasai> nigel: I think the confusion is the registry is associated with these things, is it constitute these things or are they merely associated
15:20:57 <fantasai> florian: If nothing objectionable in the PR, land it today and do another round later?
15:21:09 <fantasai> nigel: No objection, I think all the PR changes are improvements, they don't fully resolve the issue
15:21:18 <fantasai> plh: So hearing that we merge the PR, but keep the issue open
15:21:44 <TallTed> q+
15:21:53 <fantasai> plh: objections to merging PR?
15:22:15 <fantasai> TallTed: I propose a small editorial adjustment...
15:22:48 <TallTed> q-
15:22:52 <plh> ack plh
15:22:55 <fantasai> plh: Objections to merging, letting Florian review the editorial suggesiton?
15:23:13 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 807, potentialy with editorial suggestion from Ted
15:23:31 <fantasai> florian: I'll follow up with either an explanation or a PR to make Nigel happy :)
15:23:42 <fantasai> Topic: Charter Review
15:23:52 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/580#issuecomment-1896704262
15:23:58 <nigel> i/Topic/nigel: Thank you!
15:24:20 <fantasai> plh: I updated the comment with suggestions from Mark and cwilso
15:25:04 <fantasai> florian: When we charter a new WG, the Process talks a lot about after we start an AC review, and almost nothing before that. Just says Team can propose charter.
15:25:18 <fantasai> florian: So we divided into 3 phases. 3rd phase is post-AC Review
15:25:31 <fantasai> florian: then we have before "Advance Notice and AC Review" and between
15:25:43 <fantasai> florian: How do we switch from phase 1 to phase 2, the official start of chartering
15:26:01 <fantasai> ... in this proposal Team still does it, but the Membership has right ot ask for it
15:26:24 <fantasai> ... and Team has to make a Decision -- which means it can be objected to if disagree with the decision
15:26:42 <fantasai> ... timing out counts as a decision.
15:27:08 <nigel> q+ to ask whether phase 3 is the post the beginning of AC Review or post completion of the AC Review
15:27:31 <plh> ack nigel
15:27:31 <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask whether phase 3 is the post the beginning of AC Review or post completion of the AC Review
15:27:33 <fantasai> florian: we considered asking either Team or AB or TAG, but it gets confusing especially if there is disagreement, so just left at Team, and Team can consult with AB / TAG and objections trigger a Council which gets everyone involved
15:27:52 <fantasai> nigel: In your 3 phases, phase 3 is post-AC review ... is that after completion of review or during?
15:28:22 <fantasai> florian: starting with the start of AC Review, that's well-documented in Process already
15:28:37 <fantasai> ACTION: plh to clarify phrasing in his comment
15:28:58 <fantasai> florian: Phase 2, we have a "Chair" for this phase
15:29:10 <fantasai> ... and we have a time period, proposing max 6 months
15:29:20 <fantasai> ... during this phase, every comment on the charter must be formally addressed
15:29:27 <fantasai> ... you have to do wide review (incl horizontal review)
15:29:33 <fantasai> ... and you have to make a Disposition of Comments
15:29:47 <fantasai> florian: If you find consensus, you ask the Team for review.
15:30:05 <fantasai> ... if your charter doesn't conform, or don't have wide review or a DoC, then Team will send you back to work
15:30:13 <fantasai> ... if it seems ready, they can move it to AC Review
15:30:46 <fantasai> florian: if after 6 months, have a Decision about whether a) we move forward b) need to extend time for more work or c) abandon effort
15:30:52 <fantasai> ... this is a Decision, so can object to it
15:31:05 <fantasai> florian: [reviews]
15:31:21 <fantasai> ... phase 1 is preliminary discussions, then Team Decision to move to phase 2
15:31:38 <fantasai> ... phase 2 is developing the charter under the "Chair", then Team Decision to move to phase 3 or extend or abandon
15:32:00 <fantasai> florian: Because there's no defined group, the Chair can move on even if no consensus; but needs to document that in the DoC
15:32:07 <fantasai> ... so Team and AC will know about lack of ocnsensus
15:32:12 <fantasai> s/ocncon/
15:32:20 <nigel> q+ to ask about expectations regarding who the chair should be
15:32:34 <fantasai> florian: FOs during phase 2 are not processed immediatly. They're processed together with the AC Review feedback and FOs.
15:33:13 <plh> ack nigel
15:33:13 <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask about expectations regarding who the chair should be
15:33:26 <fantasai> nigel: I think it's good to document this stuff
15:33:47 <fantasai> ... wrt expectation of who the "Chair" is, you said it's not expected to be the WG chair
15:33:57 <fantasai> ... did you expect it to not be the chair?
15:34:26 <fantasai> plh: It may be the chair. In some cases the WG chair is not in the best place to get consensus between group and AC
15:34:32 <cwilso> q+
15:34:37 <fantasai> ... so not necessarily the chair of the WG
15:34:49 <fantasai> nigel: Might be misunderstood as "expect not to be the WG chair"
15:35:02 <fantasai> ... might need rephrasing
15:35:03 <plh> ack cwilson
15:35:11 <fantasai> nigel: having been the chair in this case, I agree with your concerns
15:35:28 <fantasai> cwilso: Process they're going through is effectively chairing the process, but not chairing the WG
15:35:52 <florian> q+
15:35:54 <fantasai> ... also we need to clarify selection of WG chair
15:35:59 <plh> ack cw
15:36:02 <plh> acl florian
15:36:05 <plh> ack florian
15:36:07 <fantasai> ... but this is definitely a chairing process, so maybe clarify that it's a "Chair of Chartering Process"
15:36:40 <fantasai> florian: Not calling it chair avoids confusion with chair of WG, but calling it a chair has upsides because we define chair responsibilities etc. in the Process already
15:37:02 <fantasai> ... so maybe we use a different term like "Facilitator" but define this position as a Chair in terms of the Process.
15:38:06 <fantasai> plh: Let's go over open questions
15:38:06 <fantasai> florian: Council normally has a binary choice: uphold or overturn the objection
15:38:06 <fantasai> ... but here there's a ternary choice
15:38:28 <fantasai> ... if uphold an objection to a decision to one of the 3 alternatives, what happens next?
15:38:45 <fantasai> ... does Council choose among the 3, or do we empower someone else?
15:39:03 <fantasai> ... but then we also have if you're unhappy with Council, then we have AC Appeal
15:39:10 <fantasai> ... but that's again defined as a 2-way decision
15:39:26 <fantasai> ... so need to say what happens ehre
15:39:32 <fantasai> s/ehre/here/
15:39:43 <fantasai> nigel: so you're talking about upholding or not a decision of this group
15:39:57 <fantasai> ... if the decision is "take to AC Review", and Council upholds that, then it doesn't go to AC Review
15:40:20 <fantasai> ... but other ...
15:40:43 <fantasai> plh: FOs during the charter development process don't prevent AC Review, they get handled at the end of AC Review
15:41:07 <fantasai> florian: if you're objecting to AC Review, sure. But what's the most confusing is if the chair decides to give up / close down group.
15:41:25 <fantasai> ... that's one of 3 options: send to AC Review, give up, extend attempt to find consensus
15:41:38 <fantasai> ... if you object to extending is it because you think it's a waste of time, or you think it's done?
15:41:49 <fantasai> ... if the chair decides to extend and you object to it, and the Council supports you
15:41:56 <fantasai> ... does it mean you have to give up or send to AC Review
15:42:07 <fantasai> nigel: seems that maybe the FO should say what to do
15:42:16 <fantasai> florian: what if 2 ppl file FO, with opposite desires?
15:42:28 <fantasai> nigel: then the Council will deliberate and uphold one or the other
15:42:42 <fantasai> florian: the Council handles all the FOs together
15:42:48 <fantasai> plh: I thought we don't handle FOs yet?
15:43:31 <fantasai> florian: with one exception: if you object to substance, it get processed with FOs in AC Review, but FO to decision to have AC Review or not gets processed immediately
15:43:34 <nigel> s/say what to do/say what they want to do
15:44:02 <fantasai> florian: you can object to the extension, for example
15:44:41 <fantasai> florian: It's clear that we need a Council, but not how it can decide
15:45:11 <fantasai> nigel: can filibuster by keep asking for extension, and chair says no more extensions, and get an FO to extension
15:45:28 <fantasai> ... should be clear what they want
15:45:48 <fantasai> florian: Yes, but the Council can't decide that, they can only decide "Chair decision was right" or "Chair decision was wrong". Doesn't say what to do instead.
15:45:55 <fantasai> ... and we have 2 alternatives here
15:46:28 <fantasai> ... if it's in front of Council, maybe easiest to empower them to decide
15:46:54 <fantasai> nigel: or maybe it closes off this one possibility, and the chair needs to go back to group to decide whether to move forward or abandon effort
15:47:29 <fantasai> ... although FO chains aren't great either
15:47:53 <fantasai> florian: Same question for AC Appeal, if the appeal works, it goes back to the chair and they make another decision?
15:47:57 <fantasai> ... it works, but it would be very slow
15:48:01 <fantasai> ... can we shortcut?
15:48:19 <fantasai> ... I suspect in Council yes
15:48:51 <fantasai> ... but AC Appeal, at least there's a singular appeal so AC can agree or disagree with the appealer's preferred outcome
15:49:03 <fantasai> nigel: so we're talking about FO to chair decision to not extend
15:49:21 <fantasai> ... maybe rephrase chair's decision as "we're going to AC review now" or "we're abandoning now".
15:49:30 <fantasai> ... nevemrind
15:49:37 <fantasai> s/vemr/verm/
15:49:46 <fantasai> plh: Do we need to put a maximum time on extensions?
15:50:17 <fantasai> florian: I don't think in practice we can put a max. Because then you can abandon and then restart the effort, which defeats the max.
15:50:21 <fantasai> plh: not sure it's critical to resolve this case
15:50:31 <fantasai> florian: we need to write something unambiguous into the Process
15:50:47 <fantasai> florian: Another open quesiton is about the duration
15:50:57 <fantasai> ... we have question of how long to go in total
15:51:08 <fantasai> ... but does the initial phase have to be 6 months?
15:51:20 <fantasai> ... probably need at least a minimum
15:51:21 <fantasai> ... maybe a month
15:51:48 <fantasai> ... maybe the Team should pick the duration, must be at least a month
15:52:03 <fantasai> plh: there is wide review and horizontal review happening in that phase
15:52:13 <fantasai> ... horizontal review can take months
15:52:22 <fantasai> florian: if renewing a group, could go fast
15:52:36 <fantasai> nigel: could review to deltas
15:53:00 <fantasai> fantasai: should be up to the HRG to decide the scope of their review
15:53:11 <fantasai> plh: in practice you can't do it
15:53:12 <nigel> s/to deltas/the deltas
15:53:24 <fantasai> florian: That's the topic
15:53:30 <fantasai> ... expect to discuss at the AB meeting next week
15:53:39 <fantasai> ... if ppl generally supportive, will work on PR
15:53:48 <fantasai> ... which will expose more isues :)
15:53:55 <fantasai> ... if any nuances to consider, post into the issue
15:54:15 <fantasai> plh: we'll start by modifying the Guidebook
15:54:18 <fantasai> ... and think about what from that we reflect into the Process
15:54:33 <fantasai> florian: Much of this is doable without Process changes. They're necessary to enforce it, but not to practice.
15:54:41 <fantasai> ... so Team will be welcome to start experimenting with this and see how it goes
15:55:09 <fantasai> fantasai: I suppose we should draft this up to present to AC?
15:55:22 <fantasai> s/to AC/at AC Meeting/
15:55:41 <fantasai> ACTION: plh to work on /Guide PR
15:55:45 <fantasai> ACTION: florian to work on Process PR
15:56:21 <fantasai> fantasai: Process needs to set up scaffolding of these different phases, but not how you progress through them
15:56:50 <fantasai> plh: we'll re-add to agenda for next call, after AB discussions
15:57:08 <fantasai> Topic: Defining Horizontal Groups
15:57:15 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/769
15:57:23 <fantasai> florian: question to you, plh
15:57:37 <fantasai> plh: even in /Guide we don't have definition of Horizontal Group
15:57:42 <fantasai> ... define horizontal review
15:57:50 <fantasai> ... I guess I can follow up to propose something
15:58:07 <fantasai> florian: Don't know strongly where the term should be defined
15:58:15 <fantasai> ... maybe in /Guide is fine
15:58:28 <fantasai> nigel: /Guide link to horizontal review is 404
15:58:32 <fantasai> plh: that's a bug
15:59:58 <fantasai> Topic: Status Naming
16:00:02 <fantasai> fantasai: current proposeal is https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/779#issuecomment-1852834048
16:00:07 <fantasai> nigel: consistency is good, makes sense
16:00:21 <fantasai> ACTION: editors to propose a PR
16:01:30 <fantasai> Topic: Scheduling
16:02:28 <fantasai> Discussing whether to hold a call on the 14th or skip it or shifting it
16:03:55 <fantasai> Leaning towards cancelling.
16:03:58 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
16:04:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-w3process-minutes.html fantasai