14:08:42 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 14:08:46 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-irc 14:08:53 present+ 14:08:59 present+ JennieM , florian 14:09:02 present+ 14:09:08 present+ fantasai 14:09:19 Topic: Pull Requests to Review 14:09:39 subtopic: Consolidate similar parts of REC revision 14:09:39 GH: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/878 14:09:49 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/878 14:10:25 Florian: we're makingtweaks to an already approved charter 14:11:14 Ted: you can use "in" or "as" but not both 14:11:26 Florian: or use therein 14:12:48 "may be annotated therein as candidate additions" 14:13:08 "tentative new features may be annotated therein as candidate additions" 14:14:10 "tentative new features may be annotated there as candidate additions" 14:15:07 Florian: I'll take the rest and we'll go back to GH for the rest 14:15:29 subtopic: Shift most discussion of Workshops to /Guide 14:15:41 Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/876 14:16:48 plh: sgtm 14:17:55 Resolved: Merge #876 14:18:01 scribe+ 14:18:16 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Jul/0000.html 14:19:44 Subtopic: Making the Council's short circuit a little more flexible 14:19:50 github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/852 14:20:08 florian: Discussed the rigidity of unanimity for the short circuit. 14:20:19 florian: even if not everyone has responded, should be good enough if almost everyone 14:20:32 florian: AB suggested clarifying that there must be a minimum time period 14:20:51 florian: not close the poll right after reaching the minimum threshold, but allow those with a negative opinion to have time to respond potentially 14:21:09 florian: If at the end of the poll enough people have responded and the respondants are unanimous, then we take it 14:21:17 florian: I went with 80% and 2 weeks 14:21:26 florian: but we don't have a firm resolution about timing and threshold 14:21:35 plh: I'm fine with the PR except for "must be open for two weeks" 14:21:41 plh: should say "at least" 14:21:46 plh: to allow for a longer timeframe 14:21:57 +1 14:22:35 i/Topic: Pull Requests to Review/chair: plh 14:22:35 i/Topic: Pull Requests to Review/scribe+ plh 14:22:35 i/Topic: Pull Requests to Review/meeting: W3C Process Community Group 14:22:35 i/Topic: Pull Requests to Review/previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/22-w3process-minutes.html 14:22:36 i/Topic: Pull Requests to Review/next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/07/24-w3process-minutes.html 14:22:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:22:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:22:40 florian: if you don't get to the threshold, then you extend. 14:22:40 rrsagent, make logs public 14:23:03 fantasai: Still worth allowing an extension of two weeks 14:23:15 florian: if we extend, who decides? 14:23:18 plh: you have to rely on the Team 14:24:06 florian: so, "at least two weeks, at the discretion of the Team"? 14:24:34 fantasai: There's still the clock running for convening the Council 14:24:43 fantasai: so you can't go for, e.g. 7 weeks 14:24:53 florian: So proposal is to accept with "at least two weeks" 14:25:08 plh: if AB or TAG wants to argue about timing, can have that conversation with Team 14:25:18 florian: I think AB was mainly concerned about being too short 14:25:29 florian: not a short circuit if it takes too long, but as fantasai pointed out the Council will start 14:25:33 florian: OK works for me 14:25:51 florian: Is 2 weeks good? is 80% good? 14:26:04 plh: I'm fine with them. Did we inform TAG about this change? 14:26:13 florian: didn't specifically, in general they leave process stuff to others 14:26:26 plh: Merge with "at least", and discuss next week to confirm 14:27:27 RESOLVED: Merge https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/885 14:27:38 with addition of "at least" 14:27:48 Subtopic: Retire Proposed Recommendation 14:27:55 github: Retire Proposed Recommendation 14:28:06 s/github: Retire Proposed Recommendation// 14:28:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/861 14:28:50 florian: [short explanation of the REC track] 14:29:10 florian: PR is odd because it's not a state at which the document is edited. It's just a way to mark the spec version that's being voted on. 14:29:23 florian: we had a similar phase called "Last Call Working Draft", which we removed 14:29:37 florian: for similar reasons, we're proposing (now with support of AB) to drop the Proposed Recommendation stage. 14:29:49 florian: This doesn't change any of the requirements to go from CR to REC 14:29:58 florian: but just removes the intermediary PR phase 14:30:19 florian: Drafted up at https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/868 14:30:24 florian: some comments to discuss 14:31:19 florian: First comment is that "proposed recommendation" no longer exists in the Process, so if you get linked to the Process there's no explanation 14:31:38 florian: Nigel suggests an Appendix that lists stages of the process that used to exist 14:32:14 florian: Seems like a good idea, maybe in a separate PR, add as a glossary that points to the versions of the Process that defined the term 14:32:26 plh: In terms of linking from /TR, we use dated versions of the URL already 14:32:49 plh: because publication is anchored within the Process as it was at the time of publication 14:32:54 plh: so that solves most of the problem 14:34:02 fantasai: I think it's a nice idea to include, even if we don't have a linking problem, people will have heard about these terms and good to be able to find them in the process 14:34:10 florian: so I can take an action to draft as a separate PR 14:34:16 https://www.w3.org/standards/types 14:34:19 ACTION: Florian to draft appendix of defunct Process terms 14:34:54 plh: maybe that document also needs an appendix... 14:35:31 florian: Next comment is from Ted suggesting editorial rephrasing... but I think the text is moved, not new. 14:36:09 florian: Nigel doesn't like the rephrasing 14:36:13 TallTed: fine either way 14:36:38 plh: let's drop it 14:37:11 florian: Thanks to re-ordering of things, something that was true already became more apparent: 14:37:27 florian: once a spec reaches REC, you can no longer add new features to it. Going back to CR doesn't change that. 14:37:35 florian: to add new features, you need to go back to FPWD 14:37:53 florian: We did add the ability say "this REC can add new features", which allows it. But if you didn't have that the first time around, you're locked. 14:38:20 florian: Nigel suggests a note to highlight that you would need to start a new FPWD. 14:38:50 florian: but note would be as long as the thing it's pointing to, so I'm worried about the Process getting wordy... 14:39:27 TallTed: wouldn't be the first if you revert 14:39:38 florian: No, you'd need to start a new document -- can't revise the existing one 14:41:15 [some discussion about wording] 14:41:51 https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#rec-track 14:42:26 fantasai: I think maybe if we move the definition of expandable REC into the "revising" section, this paragraph can be simplified into a pointer to that paragraph 14:42:55 florian: You can go back from REC to WD, but you can't add new features. 14:43:09 TallTed: But currently from PR you can go back and add new features. 14:44:09 florian: [explains what's allowed again] 14:44:25 florian: Point of this is that if you are an external consumer of a REC, you can assume that the REC will never have new features. 14:44:30 florian: and that's not new 14:45:04 florian: So could either link sections better, or move the paragraph elsewhere. 14:45:43 florian: Felt it worked better in this section because it defines a type of REC, not something about the publication process 14:46:16 fantasai: we should try to move most of the paragraph 14:46:35 fantasai: I get the idea of having the definition of different kinds of recs upfront 14:46:50 fantasai: but the rest of the details should go into the "revising a rec" section 14:46:59 florian: sounds good, let's try 14:47:11 plh: wfm 14:47:13 at https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/868/files, the diagram needs something that points back to FPWD, possibly labeled "when adding new features to RECs that aren't marked as accepting such" 14:47:35 TallTed, no because that's not the same document. You need to start a new draft for that. 14:47:52 The diagram represents the transitions of a particular technical report 14:48:14 florian: Next point, we have a bullet list and "after all criteria are fulfilled, the Team does things" 14:48:33 florian: Nigel suggests that the verification things are initiated by WG request to advance 14:48:43 florian: We already require that in the bullet list 14:49:06 plh: I'm for simplicity 14:49:31 plh: It's a requirement for advancement. In practice, we're keeping the transition request just a different transition request 14:49:43 plh: The Guidebook will remap everything 14:50:39 fantasai: I think Nigel is just requesting that we clarify that the WG request is a WG Decision. 14:51:22 florian: [quotes document]. Add "This is a Working Group decision"? 14:51:31 TallTed: "may *decide* to request advancement" 14:51:35 florian: fewer words, I like it 14:51:55 ACTION: Florian to clarify that the request for advancement is a WG decision. 14:52:10 ACTION: Florian and fantasai to shuffle expandable REC text around 14:52:22 florian: OK, I'll work on those. If you want more changes, comment! 14:53:02 fantasai: Should we give the AC a heads up about this change? 14:53:21 florian: Maybe wait until we have slightly more solid wording? 14:54:42 fantasai: Should give enough heads up that they have time to absorb the idea before TPAC, and if we wait until next Process call then we're in the middle of August 14:55:17 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:55:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:55:26 fantasai: I'll post to AC Forum, as an informal heads up. 14:55:30 florian: Include chairs@ 14:55:43 ACTION: fantasai to post FYI about removing PR to AC Forum and chairs@ 14:55:56 Topic: Interaction with AB 14:56:07 florian: Does this group have things we should raise to AB? 14:56:15 [AB F2F is next week] 14:56:22 s/Ted: you/TallTed: you/ 14:56:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:56:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:56:48 florian: We've put the chartering PR on the AB agenda. Conversation was a bit confused last time, so hoping it goes better this time. 14:57:20 plh: TAG nomination process might be discussed also, but need to discuss there first before here. 14:57:27 plh: So we might get stuff from AB/TAG after the meeting 14:57:38 s|GH: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/878|| 14:57:55 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:57:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:58:03 plh: I hope AB will make progress on incubation and 3 I's (independent interoperable implementations) 14:58:08 Topic: Issues to Discuss 14:58:34 Subtopic: AC Appeals vs Recalls 14:58:49 florian: We discussed having a recall procedure for AB/TAG (separate from CEO disciplinary) 14:58:58 florian: and how it would be similar to AC Appeal 14:59:06 "5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request" 14:59:11 florian: and also similar to Bylaws 14:59:27 florian: Interesting point is that the threshold for passing changes depending on quorum 14:59:38 florian: If < 15% of Membership participats, you need 75% majority 14:59:47 florian: 15-20% you need 2/3 majority 14:59:54 florian: Above 20% quorum, use simple majority 15:00:23 florian: For AC Appeal, and also for other momentous decisions like that, would make sense to have something similar 15:00:40 florian: I think it's a good idea to adopt this concept -- and for simplicity, use the same thresholds as the Bylaws 15:01:15 s/AC Appeals vs Recalls/Adjust AC appeal vote threshold based on participation 15:01:23 Topic: Scheduling 15:01:31 Going to miss the next few meetings 15:01:55 s/Going/plh: Going/ 15:02:08 fantasai: I can probably handle the 24th 15:02:18 plh: Thanks for progress, it's slow but progress nevertheless! 15:03:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/10-w3process-minutes.html fantasai 15:04:02 JennieM has joined #w3process