Meeting minutes
plh: [reviews agenda]
plh: Florian and I triaged the issues and have some ideas about charter review, so wanted to go over that
plh: AC is meeting in April. We need to report on our progress there.
florian: Wrt charter thing, I'm hoping to discuss next week, so good to get to it before that.
florian: so let's not get stuck on the issues/PRs
[agenda adjustments]
Pull Requests to Review
Clarify FO publication timing
florian: There's a requirement that FOs are made public, but there was no deadline
… PR sets that up in the Process, but not in a great amount of detail
… You have to publish before Council starts
… if FO is resolved, then that changes situation, but if not you have to publish
… additional guidance is proposed to the Guide
plh: We discussed the approach last time
plh: Are we OK with the approach in 808?
florian: Note Tantek approved the changes in GH
plh: Let's review PR against the guide
plh: I expect this group to get more involved in /Guide as well
<nigel> Just noting that sadly I did not have time to review the changes to FO publication timing
plh: I don't want e.g. us to put things in the Proess because /Guide isn't in scope
plh: We didn't want to put anything in stone, but wanted to give Team some guidance
plh: First guidance is that all FOs need to be published, so that we have the history
… Second, if WG needs to discuss, then we need to make the FO public
… WG participants do not necessarily have Member access (although this situation will become less common due to IE access changes)
… 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.
… Now, we should systematically publish all the FOs anonymized
florian: The text doesn't say that, it says only anonymize systematically for trivial FOs
… for the case you talk about it, it's not trivial. The text doesn't say one way or another
… 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
plh: Lastly, we need to follow up with resolution of the FO
… this is all meant for /Guide
… I haven't seen any comments in the issue for the past 2 weeks
… so my sense is PR is good as-is, unless anyone here has a comment
plh: I think we can close the issue now?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 808
RESOLUTION: Close issue 735
Reduce confusion wrt registry sections
nigel: My context is implementing embedded registry in a spec
nigel: I like all the changes in the PR, but I think some more changes need to be made
… to clarify what a registry actually is
… "associated parts" isn't clear if they form the registry or are associated with it
… is a registry definition in an embedded registry?
… 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
… but I don't think that's clear?
… also, registry definition tells you change process with the registry table
… but what are rules about changes to the definition?
florian: I think the answer to your question is in the document, but maybe it's not obvious
… to write a registry definition, you write text in a REC. Therefore the normal rules of a REC apply.
… and in a standalone document, those same rules apply
… I think the Process doc normatively says that; but whether easy to say that, maybe not
nigel: I think the confusion is the registry is associated with these things, is it constitute these things or are they merely associated
florian: If nothing objectionable in the PR, land it today and do another round later?
nigel: No objection, I think all the PR changes are improvements, they don't fully resolve the issue
plh: So hearing that we merge the PR, but keep the issue open
plh: objections to merging PR?
TallTed: I propose a small editorial adjustment...
plh: Objections to merging, letting Florian review the editorial suggesiton?
RESOLUTION: Merge 807, potentialy with editorial suggestion from Ted
florian: I'll follow up with either an explanation or a PR to make Nigel happy :)
<nigel> nigel: Thank you!
Charter Review
plh: I updated the comment with suggestions from Mark and cwilso
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.
florian: So we divided into 3 phases. 3rd phase is post-AC Review
florian: then we have before "Advance Notice and AC Review" and between
florian: How do we switch from phase 1 to phase 2, the official start of chartering
… in this proposal Team still does it, but the Membership has right ot ask for it
… and Team has to make a Decision -- which means it can be objected to if disagree with the decision
… timing out counts as a decision.
<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask whether phase 3 is the post the beginning of AC Review or post completion of the AC Review
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
nigel: In your 3 phases, phase 3 is post-AC review ... is that after completion of review or during?
florian: starting with the start of AC Review, that's well-documented in Process already
ACTION: plh to clarify phrasing in his comment
florian: Phase 2, we have a "Chair" for this phase
… and we have a time period, proposing max 6 months
… during this phase, every comment on the charter must be formally addressed
… you have to do wide review (incl horizontal review)
… and you have to make a Disposition of Comments
florian: If you find consensus, you ask the Team for review.
… if your charter doesn't conform, or don't have wide review or a DoC, then Team will send you back to work
… if it seems ready, they can move it to AC Review
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
… this is a Decision, so can object to it
florian: [reviews]
… phase 1 is preliminary discussions, then Team Decision to move to phase 2
… phase 2 is developing the charter under the "Chair", then Team Decision to move to phase 3 or extend or abandon
florian: Because there's no defined group, the Chair can move on even if no consensus; but needs to document that in the DoC
… so Team and AC will know about lack of ocnsensus
<fantasai> s/ocncon/
florian: FOs during phase 2 are not processed immediatly. They're processed together with the AC Review feedback and FOs.
<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask about expectations regarding who the chair should be
nigel: I think it's good to document this stuff
… wrt expectation of who the "Chair" is, you said it's not expected to be the WG chair
… did you expect it to not be the chair?
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
… so not necessarily the chair of the WG
nigel: Might be misunderstood as "expect not to be the WG chair"
… might need rephrasing
nigel: having been the chair in this case, I agree with your concerns
cwilso: Process they're going through is effectively chairing the process, but not chairing the WG
… also we need to clarify selection of WG chair
<plh> acl florian
cwilso: but this is definitely a chairing process, so maybe clarify that it's a "Chair of Chartering Process"
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
… so maybe we use a different term like "Facilitator" but define this position as a Chair in terms of the Process.
plh: Let's go over open questions
florian: Council normally has a binary choice: uphold or overturn the objection
… but here there's a ternary choice
… if uphold an objection to a decision to one of the 3 alternatives, what happens next?
… does Council choose among the 3, or do we empower someone else?
… but then we also have if you're unhappy with Council, then we have AC Appeal
… but that's again defined as a 2-way decision
… so need to say what happens here
nigel: so you're talking about upholding or not a decision of this group
… if the decision is "take to AC Review", and Council upholds that, then it doesn't go to AC Review
… but other ...
plh: FOs during the charter development process don't prevent AC Review, they get handled at the end of AC Review
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.
… that's one of 3 options: send to AC Review, give up, extend attempt to find consensus
… if you object to extending is it because you think it's a waste of time, or you think it's done?
… if the chair decides to extend and you object to it, and the Council supports you
… does it mean you have to give up or send to AC Review
nigel: seems that maybe the FO should say what they want to do
florian: what if 2 ppl file FO, with opposite desires?
nigel: then the Council will deliberate and uphold one or the other
florian: the Council handles all the FOs together
plh: I thought we don't handle FOs yet?
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
florian: you can object to the extension, for example
florian: It's clear that we need a Council, but not how it can decide
nigel: can filibuster by keep asking for extension, and chair says no more extensions, and get an FO to extension
… should be clear what they want
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.
… and we have 2 alternatives here
… if it's in front of Council, maybe easiest to empower them to decide
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
… although FO chains aren't great either
florian: Same question for AC Appeal, if the appeal works, it goes back to the chair and they make another decision?
… it works, but it would be very slow
… can we shortcut?
… I suspect in Council yes
… but AC Appeal, at least there's a singular appeal so AC can agree or disagree with the appealer's preferred outcome
nigel: so we're talking about FO to chair decision to not extend
… maybe rephrase chair's decision as "we're going to AC review now" or "we're abandoning now".
… nevermind
plh: Do we need to put a maximum time on extensions?
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.
plh: not sure it's critical to resolve this case
florian: we need to write something unambiguous into the Process
florian: Another open quesiton is about the duration
… we have question of how long to go in total
… but does the initial phase have to be 6 months?
… probably need at least a minimum
… maybe a month
… maybe the Team should pick the duration, must be at least a month
plh: there is wide review and horizontal review happening in that phase
… horizontal review can take months
florian: if renewing a group, could go fast
nigel: could review the deltas
fantasai: should be up to the HRG to decide the scope of their review
plh: in practice you can't do it
florian: That's the topic
… expect to discuss at the AB meeting next week
… if ppl generally supportive, will work on PR
… which will expose more isues :)
… if any nuances to consider, post into the issue
plh: we'll start by modifying the Guidebook
… and think about what from that we reflect into the Process
florian: Much of this is doable without Process changes. They're necessary to enforce it, but not to practice.
… so Team will be welcome to start experimenting with this and see how it goes
fantasai: I suppose we should draft this up to present at AC Meeting?
ACTION: plh to work on /Guide PR
ACTION: florian to work on Process PR
fantasai: Process needs to set up scaffolding of these different phases, but not how you progress through them
plh: we'll re-add to agenda for next call, after AB discussions
Defining Horizontal Groups
florian: question to you, plh
plh: even in /Guide we don't have definition of Horizontal Group
… define horizontal review
… I guess I can follow up to propose something
florian: Don't know strongly where the term should be defined
… maybe in /Guide is fine
nigel: /Guide link to horizontal review is 404
plh: that's a bug
Status Naming
fantasai: current proposeal is w3c/
nigel: consistency is good, makes sense
ACTION: editors to propose a PR
Scheduling
Discussing whether to hold a call on the 14th or skip it or shifting it
Leaning towards cancelling.
Meeting closed.