14:04:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:04:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/13-w3process-irc
14:04:42 <fantasai> present+
14:04:54 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Mar/0000.html
14:05:16 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests to Revie
14:05:21 <fantasai> s/vie/view/
14:05:51 <joshco> joshco has joined #w3process
14:05:53 <fantasai> scribe+
14:06:25 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify what a registry is made of
14:06:30 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/800
14:06:38 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/819
14:06:56 <fantasai> florian: Follow-up from a previous PR
14:07:09 <fantasai> ... Nigel had pointed out that there's some confusion about what a registry *is*
14:07:36 <fantasai> ... had various "associations" but doesn't say what it consists of
14:07:51 <fantasai> ... referencing specifications aren't *part* of the registry
14:08:01 <fantasai> ... you still have a registry without such specs, it's just useless
14:08:31 <TallTed> present+
14:08:44 <fantasai> plh: Any other comments/questions on this PR?
14:08:57 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #818
14:09:30 <fantasai> ACTION: Florian, check with Nigel if the issue can now be closed.
14:09:38 <fantasai> Subtopic: Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
14:09:49 <fantasai> github: Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
14:09:55 <fantasai> -> Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
14:10:06 <fantasai> florian: We have a bunch of statuses that include the word "Draft"
14:10:14 <fantasai> ... older ones end in "Draft"
14:10:25 <fantasai> ... two new ones have "Draft" at the beginning
14:10:41 <fantasai> ... but then prepend "W3C" and it's no longer at beginning or end, which de-emphasizes it
14:11:07 <TallTed> q+
14:11:08 <fantasai> ... I think the only reasonable options are do nothing, or put at the end
14:11:19 <fantasai> ... because longstanding statuses like "Working Draft" have it at the end
14:11:31 <plh> q+
14:11:35 <fantasai> ... Putting at the end makes sure the word "Draft" is noticeable
14:11:50 <plh> ack ta
14:11:50 <fantasai> ... unsure if we have consensus
14:11:59 <fantasai> TallTed: Putting Draft at the end means Draft is the most important word in the label
14:12:13 <fantasai> ... putting at the beginning makes it an adjective that modifies noun that follows
14:12:43 <plh> ack plh
14:12:44 <fantasai> ... what you want to find is the thing, whether draft or not, but not looking for all drafts
14:12:46 <plh> https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc
14:13:22 <TallTed> those names leave off implied elements
14:13:28 <fantasai> plh: Do you expect to change pubrules?
14:13:33 <fantasai> fantasai: Yes, that's the point
14:13:49 <fantasai> florian: worst is "Group Draft Note", where the word "draft" is in the middle and de-emphasized
14:14:11 <fantasai> ... we already have a confusion with status of documents published by W3C, people think they are standard/official even when not
14:14:18 <fantasai> ... important to emphasize Draft
14:14:28 <cwilso> q+
14:14:37 <plh> ack fantasai
14:14:39 <fantasai> ... if we decided from scratch maybe we'd put Draft at the front, but we can't rename everything at this point
14:14:44 <TallTed> several Rec Track (for instance) leave out "Recommendation", e.g., "Draft Recommendation", "Discontinued Draft Recommendation"
14:14:51 <plh> fantasai: +1 to this pull request
14:15:01 <plh> ... we need to be consistent
14:15:30 <plh> ack cwilso
14:15:36 <TallTed> "Working Draft" is the most odd-one-out, as it's a compound noun
14:15:46 <fantasai> cwilso: Naming preference, but have to agree with Ted, if you put Draft at the beginning it's harder to skip
14:16:02 <fantasai> cwilso: Everything we work with is drafts, makes it clearer this is a status
14:16:07 <fantasai> ... but not worth losing sleep over
14:16:10 <plh> ack fantasai
14:16:10 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond to cwilso
14:16:44 <plh> fantasai: you'll get "W3C Draft ...."
14:16:57 <plh> ... so you won't get the effect that you're looking for
14:17:26 <fantasai> florian: Renaming in Process doc is not hard. Renaming in publications is a lot of churn
14:17:53 <fantasai> plh: Because the PR only renames Draft note and Draft Registries, we have very few of those, so won't create a lot of pain in our groups
14:17:56 <TallTed> The inviolable "W3C" prefix is certainly troublesome.
14:18:04 <fantasai> plh: We started with "Working Draft"
14:18:15 <fantasai> ... then added "Candidate Recommendation Draft"
14:18:25 <fantasai> ... "Snapshot Candidate Recommendation" would sound weird
14:18:37 <TallTed> "Snapshot Draft W3C Candidate Recommendation"
14:18:39 <fantasai> ... Then we added Draft Note and Draft Registry without thinking much about consistenci
14:18:55 <fantasai> ... I'm OK with the PR, can check with Webmaster about deployment
14:19:13 <fantasai> florian: Overall, I'd be OK with a variety of things, but -1 on rename everything. Not worth the churn.
14:19:15 <cwilso> "W3C Note Draft" sounds official and endorsed.  "Draft W3C Note" much less so.
14:19:21 <fantasai> plh: Same. It's a lot of work.
14:19:43 <fantasai> TallTed: I won't lie down on the road on it. In some ways it seems like a lot of thing being churned, so better opportunity than many
14:20:19 <cwilso> q+
14:20:48 <plh> fantasai: we'll introduce a lot of confusion in the community if we do a general renaming.
14:21:02 <plh> ack cwilso
14:21:17 <fantasai> ... these two renames seem worth doing to bring in line with the rest
14:21:43 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm not going to lie down on the road on this one. The more I think about it, W3C note Draft sounds official and endorsed, wherease Draft W3C note much less so
14:22:02 <fantasai> ... I would prefer to leave as outlier and not be consistent, but that's my vote but not an objection
14:22:14 <fantasai> florian: I think there's maybe 2 strong -1 against changing anything
14:23:03 <fantasai> ... so deciding between changing or not doing anything
14:23:15 <florian> s/against changing anything/against changing everything
14:23:18 <fantasai> plh: Difference between note and draft note is up to WG, really
14:23:37 <fantasai> ... for Draft Registry, major difference compared to Registry because opposite ends of registry track
14:23:42 <fantasai> ... but for Note, not much different
14:24:01 <fantasai> plh: I'm 0 on this, don't feel strongly about the change
14:24:06 <fantasai> ... can flip a coin or ask for more feedback
14:24:11 <fantasai> ... I think in the end people will not care much
14:24:35 <fantasai> fantasai: I think we can resolve on 2 options, and not others
14:24:55 <fantasai> florian: We'll resolve on those two and then wait a cycle or two to get feedback
14:25:08 <fantasai> plh: Issue was brought by Shawn, from staff; and Nigel also weighed in
14:26:30 <fantasai> PROPOSED: For Issue 779, we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819 to put "Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
14:26:37 <fantasai> RESOLVED: For Issue 779, we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819 to put "Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
14:26:53 <fantasai> Subtopic: Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
14:26:58 <fantasai> -> Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
14:27:12 <fantasai> github: Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
14:27:19 <fantasai> s/-> Confidentiality Levels and Redactions//
14:27:26 <fantasai> s/github: Confidentiality Levels and Redactions//
14:27:33 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/722
14:28:15 <fantasai> florian: I don't think the wording in the PR is quite right
14:28:22 <fantasai> ... but I also can't figure out what Josh is *trying* to solve
14:28:28 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/722#issuecomment-1983778164
14:28:42 <fantasai> joshco: Nigel asked the questions that came up to me
14:29:06 <fantasai> ... unclear to me what is expected to happen
14:29:16 <fantasai> ... are people actually doing this, is it actually happening?
14:29:29 <fantasai> plh: Nigel was asking, what is the issue associated with the PR
14:29:37 <fantasai> ... where you trying to address an actual issue?
14:30:08 <fantasai> joshco: It was while I was reviewing the text, I didn't understand what it was expecting
14:30:13 <fantasai> florian: [quotes text]
14:30:48 <fantasai> ... you expanded in order to explain it
14:31:13 <fantasai> ... but it's wrong, not supposed to use redaction for confidential information to make it public, supposed to not make it public
14:31:21 <fantasai> ... Team has procedures for changing confidentiality levels
14:31:38 <fantasai> ... The sentence is more general, it's making reasonable effort to maintain confidentiality
14:31:54 <fantasai> ... How is context-dependent
14:32:19 <fantasai> ... so I think your clarifications aren't correct. Whether we need other clarifications, I don't know
14:32:51 <fantasai> joshco: The audience of this is not the people who are deciding the confidentiality level
14:33:03 <fantasai> ... this is about readers of the document should respect the confidentality level of the document
14:33:15 <fantasai> florian: That would be a clarification to the first point
14:33:35 <fantasai> ... respecting appropriate level of confidentiality
14:33:40 <fantasai> ... second point is about applying proper care
14:33:44 <fantasai> ... is that reasonable?
14:33:47 <fantasai> joshco: Yeah
14:33:52 <fantasai> florian: OK I'll try to come up with a PR
14:33:58 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Discuss
14:34:11 <nigel> nigel has joined #w3process
14:34:25 <fantasai> Subtopic: Charter review process
14:34:34 <fantasai> plh: What's the status? Any follow-up from the AB?
14:34:59 <nigel> rrsagent, pointer
14:34:59 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/03/13-w3process-irc#T14-34-59
14:35:02 <florian> q+
14:35:09 <plh> ack florian
14:35:35 <fantasai> florian: I feel that the AB didn't so much have a negative to reaction to the specifics of the proposal, but a reacted to "more rules? that feels like a lot! we have so much process already do we need all this"
14:35:35 <cwilso> +1
14:35:51 <fantasai> ... which makes me think I was bad at presenting it, because it doesn't actually introduce a lot of rules?
14:36:06 <fantasai> ... so I think we need to make sure the proposal is expressed in a brief way
14:36:12 <fantasai> ... I don't think it's a lot
14:36:22 <cwilso> q+
14:36:24 <fantasai> ... but it requires better phrasing, and I haven't done that yet
14:36:30 <nigel> rrsagent, make logs public
14:36:41 <plh> ack cw
14:36:44 <fantasai> ... Maybe once it's phrased in a way that is simpler people will like it, maybe not
14:36:50 <fantasai> cwilso: Agree with Florian's assessment
14:37:09 <fantasai> ... also negative reaction to adding more process, but also agree it wasn't actually very much more process
14:37:18 <fantasai> ... just making sure that it's clarified how things plug in
14:37:26 <fantasai> ... I think we should keep this on the plate, I think it's a good idea
14:37:28 <plh> q+
14:37:31 <fantasai> ... need to figure out how to make it more acceptable
14:37:42 <fantasai> plh: With my Team hat, I came out of this session as "we have a communication problem"
14:37:47 <fantasai> ... that should be my first priority
14:37:56 <fantasai> ... not that we don't need changes to Process
14:38:03 <fantasai> ... but communication issue is more urgent
14:38:23 <fantasai> ... best next step would be PR against Process, to make it clear that it's not complicated
14:38:35 <fantasai> florian: Agree. Need to make a first draft which will be too long, and then simplify. :)
14:39:58 <cwilso> +1
14:40:05 <fantasai> [some discussion about problems that we run into during chartering; Florian and plh both agree this would reduce such problems ]
14:40:45 <fantasai> Topic: Process 2024
14:40:53 <fantasai> plh: AC meeting April 8-9
14:41:02 <fantasai> ... ideally we present our proposed major changes to the AC at this time
14:41:12 <fantasai> ... but we don't really have any such changes atm, just minor fixes
14:41:30 <fantasai> ... I believe the ongoing discussion around resolving FOs and issue 580 will take several months
14:41:41 <fantasai> ... I don't expect us to have anything concrete before TPAC
14:42:02 <fantasai> florian: Agree, and given experience with AB, we need to be able to explain very crisply.
14:42:20 <fantasai> ... If we're not ready to do that, it's not going to be a useful discussion.
14:42:37 <fantasai> plh: We have to decide when to ship Process 2024
14:42:45 <florian> q+
14:42:51 <plh> ack plh
14:42:55 <fantasai> ... do we prepare a Process for the summer?
14:43:00 <fantasai> ... and iterate over the rest?
14:43:01 <plh> ack florian
14:43:16 <fantasai> florian: My preference would be to extend by ~ 6 month so we present at TPAC rather than AC
14:43:22 <fantasai> ... and ratify after TPAC
14:43:28 <fantasai> ... Might end up early 2025
14:43:46 <fantasai> ... last few years we had big changes that were needed, and needed to release earlier
14:43:55 <fantasai> ... I think better to reduce number of cycles
14:44:30 <fantasai> plh: I'm ok with that. Good chance we can make good progress on this one issue, TimBL's participation in Council
14:44:39 <fantasai> florian: Also a few adjustments to Council based on current Councils
14:44:48 <plh> ack fantasai
14:44:50 <fantasai> plh: 580 is longer term, I'd be surprised if we're ready by TPAC
14:45:36 <plh> q+
14:46:17 <fantasai> fantasai: We might be able to get it ready by TPAC, if Florian and I can draft up in April and we can refine through spring/summer
14:46:21 <plh> ack plh
14:46:53 <fantasai> plh: Change wrt abstaining on TAG/AB decisions is maybe urgent?
14:47:03 <fantasai> florian: It's a good rule, but not urgent. Only affects votes, not decisions by consensus.
14:47:15 <fantasai> ... and so far we've only had decisions by consensus in the Councils
14:47:24 <nigel> present+ Nigel_Megitt_very_late
14:47:33 <fantasai> plh: Council dismissal votes being public?
14:47:38 <fantasai> florian: Haven't had a chance yet
14:47:49 <fantasai> plh: OK, so let's defer decision to ship new Process until TPAC
14:48:17 <fantasai> Topic: New Issues
14:48:26 <fantasai> Subtopic: The minimum time commitment for participation in the elected bodies is
14:48:32 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/820
14:48:55 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:48:55 <Zakim> Present: Dingwei, plh, florian, TallTed, cwilso, Nigel_Megitt, fantasai, Nigel_Megitt_very_late
14:48:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see nigel, joshco, RRSAgent, AramZS, TallTed, github-bot, fantasai, astearns, csarven, Mek, plh, Ralph, jyasskin, npd, imlostlmao, sdd, SintayewGashaw, matrix638,
14:48:57 <Zakim> ... joraboi445, gonzu_15, florian, Zakim, timeless, tink, cwilso
14:49:06 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:49:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/13-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
14:49:14 <fantasai> plh: My problem with such expectations is enforcing them.
14:49:14 <nigel> present- Nigel_Megitt_very_late
14:49:26 <fantasai> ... e.g. we used to have Good Standing rules, and the groups didn't enforce them anyway so we removed them
14:49:38 <fantasai> ... so unless groups are willing to enforce, unnecessary to put rules
14:50:00 <fantasai> florian: Intent wasn't to have rules, but to have "authoritative guidance" about reasonable expectations
14:50:00 <cwilso> q+
14:50:09 <fantasai> plh: Key word is "Guidance", that's not a change for Process
14:50:16 <plh> ack cw
14:50:16 <fantasai> ... need to figure out where to put guidance
14:50:28 <fantasai> cwilso: I don't think Process need to lay out something informance
14:50:33 <fantasai> ... but we need guidance that gets taken seriously
14:50:46 <fantasai> ... and that needs to be sent along with the Team's call for nominations
14:50:55 <fantasai> ... it should lay out expectations for people who sign up
14:51:06 <fantasai> plh: Would be helpful if TAG would provide a job description
14:51:09 <nigel> q+
14:51:10 <fantasai> florian: including the workload
14:51:22 <fantasai> plh: Helpful for candidates to evaluate whether they want to run or not
14:51:40 <fantasai> cwilso: that's what Tess was saying: the TAG charter used to do that, described the job of TAG
14:51:43 <florian> q+
14:51:47 <plh> ack nigel
14:51:49 <fantasai> ... so now that we don't have TAG charter, we need to put that somewhere else
14:51:49 <plh> q+
14:51:53 <fantasai> ... though agree it wouldn't go in the Process
14:52:01 <fantasai> cwilso: Maybe move this issue to AB since not Process
14:52:23 <fantasai> nigel: Talking about expectations and job descriptions, dancing around fact that these positions are self-funded
14:52:28 <fantasai> ... there's diversity implications there as well
14:52:38 <fantasai> plh: no objection to move to AB
14:52:40 <plh> ack florian
14:52:44 <fantasai> florian: in favor
14:52:57 <fantasai> ... AB documents in a wiki page, and might not be official enough; maybe /Guide is better
14:52:59 <plh> ack plh
14:53:02 <fantasai> ... but can hash that out in AB
14:53:08 <cwilso> I don't disagree with Nigel, and note https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/1.  (yes, issue #1!)
14:53:23 <plh> ack fan
14:53:34 <fantasai> fantasai: so proposed resolution to move to AB?
14:53:38 <fantasai> florian: define somewhere, but not Process
14:53:49 <fantasai> plh: and AB can talk to TAG about job description
14:54:04 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Move #820 to AB
14:54:35 <fantasai> Subtopic: Chair should be required in charter
14:54:45 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/823
14:55:04 <fantasai> plh: I'm open to to this additional requirement
14:56:01 <fantasai> ... for Team Contacts, I would have a different position, but for chairs makes sense to me
14:56:02 <nigel> q+
14:56:09 <plh> ack nigel
14:56:25 <fantasai> nigel: I mentioned on the issue, I think what's important is we have alignment on who gets to choose and what we require
14:56:26 <cwilso> q+
14:56:42 <fantasai> ... if it's not an AC option because Team has authority, then doesn't make sense to put it in
14:56:51 <plh> ack cw
14:56:54 <plh> q+
14:57:12 <fantasai> cwilso: Sure, but you can formally object to any Team Decision--including chair choice
14:57:21 <fantasai> ... so you can FO a chair, and easiest to do this all at once
14:57:40 <fantasai> ... it is still a Team choice, but it would be easiest--and I would have the highest confidence that has chairs listed for a new group
14:57:40 <nigel> q+
14:57:50 <fantasai> ... it would be best to align that
14:57:56 <plh> ack plh
14:57:58 <fantasai> plh: +1 to cwilso
14:58:26 <fantasai> ... if we have an FO against a particular individual that gets tricky
14:58:31 <fantasai> ... haven't had that case so far
14:58:31 <florian> q+
14:58:49 <fantasai> ... recent charter with lots of feedback on proposed chairs
14:59:06 <fantasai> plh: Team should also update /Guide wrt picking chairs
14:59:18 <plh> ack nigel
14:59:29 <TallTed> meeting: Process CG Call
14:59:30 <fantasai> nigel: I think at this stage, I think we should remove chairs from charter reviews
14:59:42 <fantasai> ... deciding whether work should go ahead
14:59:43 <cwilso> q+
14:59:50 <fantasai> ... separate explicit communication from Team wrt chairs
14:59:57 <fantasai> ... then really clear what the decision is
15:00:14 <fantasai> ... so separate, but parallel
15:00:38 <fantasai> plh: At time, and I think we won't have time to solve today
15:00:54 <cwilso> q- MUCH later
15:00:55 <fantasai> florian: We also have had problem that we put someone as chair in the charter, but they didn't become the chair because their company didn't join the group
15:00:58 <cwilso> q-
15:01:11 <fantasai> plh: ok I'll add to agenda for next call
15:01:44 <fantasai> ... see you all next time
15:01:57 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
15:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/13-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
15:05:03 <nigel> github-bot, status
15:05:03 <github-bot> nigel, This is wgmeeting_github_ircbot version 0.4.8, compiled from c10bb979fa0678bceb29ce9958517525d0fdfed2, which is probably in the repository at https://github.com/dbaron/wgmeeting-github-ircbot/
15:05:03 <github-bot> I currently have data for the following channels:
15:05:03 <github-bot>   #css (0 lines buffered on "[css-anchor-position] Rename `anchor-default` to `position-anchor`")
15:05:04 <github-bot>     will comment on https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10004
15:05:04 <github-bot>   #w3process (39 lines buffered on "Chair should be required in charter")
15:05:04 <github-bot>     will comment on https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/823
15:12:52 <nigel> github-bot, end topic
15:59:27 <nigel> nigel has joined #w3process
16:00:53 <nigel_> nigel_ has joined #w3process