14:05:08 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 14:05:13 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-irc 14:05:13 agenda+ Pull Requests 14:05:15 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024May/0001.html 14:05:16 agenda+ Issues 14:05:36 present+ 14:05:40 present+ 14:05:40 present+ 14:05:57 present+ 14:06:04 present+ seth 14:06:16 scribe+ cpn 14:06:49 zakim, next agendum 14:06:50 agendum 1 -- Pull Requests -- taken up [from plh] 14:06:57 joshco has joined #w3process 14:07:09 subtopic: Issue 580 14:07:21 Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/851 14:07:43 Florian: We discussed last time, it's quite a large change 14:08:01 ... It's about initiation of chartering. Current process is lightweight, says the team does it 14:08:46 ... Want to frame the team practices better. When team has a charter ready, team sends a message identifying the chair of chartering phase, details of how to contribute 14:09:14 ... Details around handling of FOs during this process. We collapse these together, to discuss in full 14:09:34 ... Can formally request the team starts this process 14:09:40 q+ 14:09:49 ... A couple of requests for tweaks from last time 14:10:08 present+ 14:10:12 ... One was requested clarification, a bit tangential. When rechartering, if modifications are substantial, use the same process 14:10:27 ... If modifications are minor, team can do this without AC review 14:10:45 ... If team feels AC review is beneficial, they can still do that. This clarification is in 14:10:59 q+ to mention 6 months max extension 14:11:03 ... Other is about advance notice, when team is starting to think about something and wants feedback 14:11:55 q- later 14:11:57 ... We used "review notice" as the term for start of chartering phase, so there was a request to clarify that there's both formal charter review with AC, and also earlier to ask feedback 14:12:14 ... Ted made a few editorial suggestions, one remains needing clarification 14:12:47 PLH: The team isn't required to send advance notice, it's a "may" 14:13:05 Florian: If team had to send notices, they'd be a few days apart, not helpful 14:13:23 ... If there's long time between, it makes sense 14:13:34 +1 to deferring to /Guide 14:13:42 ... Additional detail could go in the Guide, don't know if we want to be stricter in the Process 14:14:13 PLH: When to trigger an AC review. The team considers group extensions beyond 6 months as substantive, requiring AC review 14:14:38 ... That policy is in the guide. Don't see a need to change the practice 14:14:51 Fantasi: It's reasonable practice, also fine not to have as requirement in the Process 14:14:58 ack c 14:15:01 ack p 14:15:01 plh, you wanted to mention 6 months max extension 14:15:40 cwilso: Thanks for all the work on this. I reviewed it, I think it's good. I appreciate the "charter review must include" bit, more effective than current process 14:15:50 q+ 14:15:52 ... Do we want to try it out before putting into the Process? 14:15:53 q+ 14:16:19 PLH: We haven't decided when to ship the next version of the Process, decide around TPAC 14:16:43 ... I tried to get Team comments on this, no comments, so so far so good 14:16:53 ... Still want to get feedback from Coralie 14:17:11 q+ 14:17:22 q- 14:17:22 ... Happy to experiment, we're already changing practice. But if not documented in the Process it needs to be in Guide, for the staff 14:17:24 q+ 14:17:24 ack plh 14:17:29 ack florian 14:18:02 Florian: We could experiment with it. One thing that would be needed in the process is any FO raised in the chartering phase waits for that to end, so FOs get processed together 14:18:13 ... Process has requirements on how fast to process, so we'd lose that 14:18:36 ... Another part is the explicit right to demand team to start a charter and object 14:18:52 ... It's not formally a Team decision, so not clear you can formally object, before in the process 14:19:03 ... But still can try it, and think we should 14:19:26 PLH: I can take an action item to add it to the Guide, so we can experiment 14:19:52 Florian: Alternatively, I could make a branch of the process with the text before merging it? 14:20:03 PLH: Either way is fine 14:20:07 TallTed has joined #w3process 14:20:33 ... This seems like the biggest process change for 2024. We have enough time to experiment before TPAC 14:20:34 ack cw 14:20:53 cwilso: I'd hope we don't have too many FOs during that early draft stage 14:21:20 ... If you're going to try the Process, it's important to note to the AC so it's different, so the usual suspects pay more attention to the review notices 14:21:46 ... I sometimes don't look before the advance notice comes out, as not clear what to do. This is an improvement 14:21:55 q+ to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html 14:22:03 ack fan 14:22:34 fantasai: Decisions made about the charter before AC review aren't FOs so that mechanism doesn't work if it's not in the process 14:22:50 ... i think it should be rolled into the process, and delay that if necessary. it shouldn't take long 14:22:56 ack plh 14:22:56 plh, you wanted to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html 14:23:17 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html Charter dev 14:23:19 PLH: To improve comms with AC, ensure they're up to date, I asked Carine to create a view of the strategy repo, showing charter pipeline 14:23:43 ... We're figuring out where to put it, making a few tweaks 14:23:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:23:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:23:59 q+ 14:24:04 ... Any objections to merging this to the main branch? 14:24:24 Florian: Ted just joined. Do you agree with my responses? 14:24:26 ack florian 14:25:36 Ted: I can file a follow up issue 14:25:47 PLH: Objections to merging 851? 14:26:05 (none) 14:26:20 fantasi: This issue needs to go to the AB 14:27:10 PROPOSED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851 14:27:43 RESOLVED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851 14:27:58 subtopic: #862 14:28:09 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/862 14:28:17 RRSAgent, set logs public 14:28:31 Florian: It's a small change, further work will be needed 14:28:42 ... People have said maintaining Recs is complicated and hard to understand 14:28:50 ... This tries to make it easier to understand 14:29:05 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:29:05 See https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-irc#T14-29-05 14:29:15 .... Four classes of change are possible. The Process discusses how to discuss changing a Rec for each class 14:29:46 ... For substantive changes and new features, it talks about folding in a candidate addition, but doesn't talk about how they're done 14:30:18 q+ 14:30:23 ... They're editorial notes, so follow that process. So this change reminds people how to do that 14:30:40 PLH: PR seems fine. It also fixes a bug in the process 14:31:00 ... Chairs still struggle with this. I can organise a TPAC breakout 14:31:09 ... We haven't solved it from a tooling point of view 14:31:24 Florian: That's why I started with the editorial bit 14:31:41 ack plh 14:31:52 RESOLVED: Merge 862 14:32:05 subtopic: #860 14:32:14 Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/860 14:32:50 Florian: Last time we had a proposal for closing an issue for updating Notes when a WG doesn't exist 14:33:02 ... PLH noted inconsistency with maintaining Rec track docs 14:33:12 ... This PR tries to harmonise 14:33:35 ... It collapses all the team ability to update documents into one place 14:33:50 ... The team can do markup changes and limited editorial changes 14:34:11 ... There's some ambiguity, in a WG if anyone disagrees it's editorial, then it's not 14:34:35 ... For the team there's no WG to debate if editorial, so it says you can do class 2 changes, but be conservative 14:34:54 q+ 14:35:01 ... Beyond class 2, they're team edits. Similar to candidate amendments, there's an annotation in the spec, then wait for a WG to fold it in 14:35:37 PLH: I like it. We do try to be conservative, due to patent policy considerations 14:36:35 ... Another comment I heard is the team has a lot of power, not fair. No, we rely on the good judgement of the team, won't make corrections unless the group is OK 14:37:12 Florian: We don't want to have to create a WG to fix typos, change affiliations, so the team needs some ability 14:37:17 ... If there's abuse, raise an FO 14:37:39 PLH: Do we say those are team decisions 14:37:54 ... May want to make that explicit 14:39:07 Florian: Important to identify, in cases where team doesn't take action 14:39:20 Fantasai: If they feel strongly, they can set up a WG at that point 14:39:23 ack plh 14:39:35 s/take action/take action, e.g. in chartering case/ 14:39:37 PROPOSED: Merge 860 14:39:45 RESOLVED: Merge 860 14:39:56 s/If they feel/Here, if the Team doesn't make an edit and people feel/ 14:39:58 zakim, next agendum 14:39:58 agendum 2 -- Issues -- taken up [from plh] 14:40:10 subtopic: #861 14:40:21 Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/861 14:40:34 Florian: I'm looking how to simplify the process 14:40:54 ... The Proposed Rec phase is useful, we do checks, poll the AC 14:41:15 ... Less useful may be the publication of the PR itself. We could do all those things on the CR 14:41:38 ... Before, we had last call CR, as a transitional phase. We removed it 10 years ago? 14:42:14 .... Other types of report, Registries, Statements, etc don't have a PR phase 14:42:56 ... I have a draft PR, it would reduce amount of text without the meaningfully changing things 14:43:16 ... Let me know if it's a bad idea. Otherwise I'll propose a PR 14:43:16 q? 14:43:18 +1 from me https://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/inside-csswg/process 14:43:23 +1 from me 14:43:35 +1 14:43:45 +1 to see the PR 14:44:17 q+ 14:44:19 Florian: OK, will make the PR. It also will help simplify the diagrams 14:44:30 ack cwilso 14:44:45 q+ 14:44:53 cwilso: The state isn't useful, but the transition point is. There are gates on PR, but really they're on advancing to Rec 14:44:56 ack plh 14:45:00 Florian: Yes, all those need to stay 14:45:29 PLH: The publication is a public signal. But there's already public confusion about the different document types we have in general 14:45:58 Florian: If we want to communicate, we could write a blog post 14:46:13 ack fan 14:46:16 PLH: If people don't care, we can remove it, but if they do we'd need to look deeper 14:46:49 Fantasai: This simplifies the process, but it's a major change to how the Process feels. We should propose it to the AB then the AC before including in the draft Process 14:47:22 Florian: Makes sense. Drafting the PR will help people judge, but happy to wait for feedback before landing it 14:47:54 subtopic: #852 14:48:12 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/852 14:48:46 Florian: When setting up a Council, if team has a recommendation for disposing the issue, and everyone agrees, we skip the Council 14:49:28 ... Two things: We could do something slightly less drastic. Also, getting feedback from everything is hard 14:49:59 ... So this is before we discuss, if anyone disagrees or isn't sure, we should talk about it 14:50:18 ... It's important to have a lot of people behind the proposal for it to be legitimate 14:50:54 ... So if any single voice says no, it needs to stay. If a few don't answer at all but 90% of the council says yes and 10% don't respond, is that good enough and still legitimate? 14:50:57 q+ 14:51:22 ack plh 14:51:24 ... Should I draft a PR? 14:51:36 PLH: I think it's a bit too early 14:52:08 ... In the case of TimBL, he doesn't want to abstain indefinitely just yet 14:52:21 ... Was this discussed in the AB and TAG? 14:52:31 Florian: Not in a formal meeting 14:52:50 PLH: I think you should consult them. But they may not be best to judge the current situation 14:53:28 cwilso: In general it seemed like a good idea. Raise in the AB 14:53:30 q+ 14:53:35 scribe+ 14:53:37 ack cpn 14:53:44 cpn: I think the legitimacy point is a good one here. I would want to keep a high threshold. 14:53:57 ... with such a large group, ~20 people 14:54:08 ... at that level 10% would be OK, but below that would raise legitimacy 14:54:22 florian: higher threshold than 80%? 14:54:44 [several: 90% seems safer] 14:54:57 cpn: percentages are strange 14:55:12 florian: Could go with a number, e.g. if 1-2 people don't respond it still passes 14:55:35 s/strange/strange when we're talking about a group of 20 in total/ 14:55:54 subtopic: #823 14:55:55 Fantasia: Higher is better, also need to allow a certain amount of time 14:56:04 s/Fantasia/Fantasai/ 14:56:06 github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/823 14:56:58 Florian: Nigel said maybe the info shouldn't be in the charter. The decision that changes a chair isn't the same as the decision to change the charter 14:57:16 ... Changing the charter requires AC review, changing chair doesn't 14:57:18 q+ 14:57:24 ack fan 14:57:42 Fantasai: Not sure I agree with that, now we've clarified what team can change and what requires AC review 14:57:45 q+ 14:58:00 ack cw 14:58:03 ... This is where people expect to find the information, it's where the AC expects to find it 14:58:08 +1 14:58:48 cwilso: It would create two separate places to have FOs, don't want to do that 14:58:52 (+1 tocwilson) 14:59:03 ack flo 14:59:03 cwilso: I'd rather it be in the initial review 14:59:11 s/tocwilson/to cwilso/ 14:59:24 Florian: We already list chairs in other places, e.g., WG pages. They may not be in sync 14:59:42 q+ 14:59:52 q- 14:59:55 q+ 15:00:33 ack cpn 15:00:59 cpn: how big a problem is maintaining these in sync? 15:01:15 PLH: Not a big problem, but can take a while to resolve who the chairs will be in some cases 15:01:37 ... But when the team nominates chairs and there's some delay, the information may not be reflected 15:02:00 +1 to the requirement 15:02:18 Florian: I'll write a PR to add chairs to charters 15:36:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-minutes.html fantasai