14:08:57 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 14:09:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/24-w3process-irc 14:09:03 present+ 14:09:13 present+ florian, cpn 14:09:30 present+ fantasai, TallTed 14:10:04 cpn has joined #w3process 14:10:09 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Jul/0002.html 14:10:12 present+ Chris_Needham 14:10:15 scribe+ cpn 14:10:17 Topic: Pull Requests to Review 14:10:25 Subtopic: Adjusting AC Appeal vote thresholds based on participation 14:10:35 github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/886 14:10:51 PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/901 14:11:17 florian: Currently, an AC appeal has a 5% threshold to decide whether to have a vote or not 14:11:48 ... The actual vote has no quorum, so we thought it was good to borrow from the bylaws, which has majority threshold dependent on participation 14:11:53 present+ 14:12:24 ... The AB approves to do this 14:12:43 TallTed has changed the topic to: Process CG — 2024-07-24 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Jul/0002.html 14:13:15 ... fantasai commented about the boundary thresholds, but this is consistent with the bylaws 14:14:13 cwilso: +1, looks good 14:14:43 cpn: I had the same question about the thresholds 14:15:20 tzviya has joined #w3process 14:15:26 florian: they were drafted by lawyers for the bylaws 14:16:30 RESOLVED: Adopt PR #901 14:17:02 Subtopic: Add appendix cataloguing old terminology 14:17:07 PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/898#pullrequestreview-2193057084 14:17:59 florian: This came up in discussion of retiring PR. Have text in the Process to define what PR was, once it's removed 14:18:36 ... so I've added an appendix, terms that have been retired, or changed terminology 14:19:06 ... This includes links to where those terms are defined 14:19:51 ... Ted commented it might be easier to find things if they're not separated. Happy to tweak how we link to things, but terms often aren't linkable 14:19:56 q+ 14:20:37 TallTed: I think it would be better to have one list, ordered by term, rather than anything that assumes knowledge 14:21:16 ... Regarding linking, there are ways to link to phrases in pages that we could use 14:22:09 florian: We could list in alphabetical rather than chronological order. Or we could merge into one list, which would make the list easier to scan 14:22:17 ... Any thoughts on these? 14:22:47 fantasai: We should definitely order alphabetically 14:22:58 RESOLVED: Order alphabetically 14:23:36 scribe+ 14:23:44 cpn: So single list annotated whether renamed or removed 14:24:05 RESOLVED: single list, annotated whether renamed or removed 14:25:18 florian: When there's no term we can link to, is it good enough to link to the section, or use web annotations to link to the phrase? 14:25:32 fantasai: Is there a dfn to link to? 14:25:47 florian: In older processes, there sometimes isn't 14:26:01 https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#RecsW3C 14:26:51 https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers 14:27:01 florian: Some terms were used but never defined, so link to the whole Process in that case 14:27:26 https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#other-charter 14:27:42 ... Would you like to see an updated PR before merging? I'll make the links as specific as I can 14:28:24 https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#maturity-levels 14:28:24 TallTed: I think it would be easier to hash this out in this PR, then discuss in a future call, there may be some back and forth 14:28:47 RESOLVED: Adopt appendix retired terms, pending some tweaking 14:29:38 Subtopic: Charter Refinement Phase 14:29:41 PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/851 14:29:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/580 14:30:20 florian: This has been presented to the AB. They liked it in principle, leaving the detail to the CG 14:31:33 ... We have a phase with a facilitator to decide if ready for AC review. FOs are not processed immediately, they're tabled to be included with any others from the AC review 14:32:10 ... The AB want to shift the emphasis, that this isn't a good time to raise an FO, and to try to seek consensus. Better to file the FO at the end 14:32:11 JennieM has joined #w3process 14:32:32 ... We can try to add this in editorially 14:33:26 ... Another open question is that during the chartering phase, the chair is supposed to make decisions, but based on whose consensus? Any AC who particpates, anyone from the public? 14:33:30 present+ 14:34:07 fantasai: If just AC reps, not helpful as they're not always involved. If only W3C members, it excludes participants of CGs who aren't members 14:34:24 ... So really is does need to be anyone from the public, but the chair will need to decide consensus 14:35:23 florian: Chairs can make decisions in absence of consensus, but suspect you're right 14:36:38 RESOLVED: Consensus is based on anyone participating 14:37:39 florian: Another question, from Tess, is that the team MAY announce when starting to think about a charter, and why not MUST? 14:38:19 ... Sometimes we may be renewing a non-controversial group, or there may only be a short time to the announcement of the formal phase 14:39:08 ... Don't want too many announcements 14:39:52 cwilso: Not against MUST here. In cases where there's only a short time to the formal announcement, the problem today is the charter is pushed to the formal process without enough review 14:41:03 q+ 14:41:27 ... I think SHOULD, as MUST may be too strong a requirement as will need to be announced anyway 14:41:41 q 14:41:44 q+ 14:41:49 ack next 14:42:19 TallTed: MUST does seem too strong. You'll tell the AC when there's a draft worth reviewing anyway 14:43:15 cwilso: Any announcement should be filterable. The team could write a charter, that's missing some context from an interested community - e.g., if we have multiple CGs interested in a topic 14:43:22 q? 14:43:32 ... There, an early announcement would help bring people together 14:44:28 florian: it could be a way to get very early feedback on an idea for a charter. Should they announce everything? 14:45:02 TallTed: It seems more a concern when it's not the team drafting the charter, and someone in the community 14:46:43 ack me 14:47:01 cwilso: The sustyweb charter is a good example. Nobody was against the idea, but pushback. Could have been an email before the formal review... 14:47:50 ... Not a requirement, so don't want to say MUST, but if it's MAY we need to include guidance on when to do it 14:48:15 fantasai: I'd go with MAY for now and add to the Guide 14:48:39 cpn: I would support that. I think it's worth going into more depth in which circumstances do we want to do that. 14:48:51 cpn: What I observed on sustainable web, the charter is what prompted everyone to look at it. 14:49:01 cpn: I was looking at it quite early in the w3c/strategy repo 14:49:08 cpn: But what focused everyone's attention was the AC Review 14:49:46 PROPOSED: Advance notice stays as MAY, add guidance to /Guide. 14:49:51 +1 14:49:54 +1 14:49:55 +1 14:49:59 RESOLVED: Advance notice stays as MAY, add guidance to /Guide. 14:50:33 florian: Next, are there cases where the charter needs not to be public? 14:50:51 fantasai: May want input from plh on this 14:51:25 florian: Can we send a non-public charter to the AC review, and can the charter development phase also be non-public? 14:52:09 RESOLVED: Defer to plh 14:52:45 q+ 14:52:55 florian: Is the chartering facilitator the chair of the proposed WG, team contact 14:53:23 q+ 14:53:25 TallTed: There may not be a team contact at this early phase. They get assign as groups get rolling 14:53:25 q- 14:53:33 +1 to fantasai 14:53:45 cpn: I'd like to see some sort of independence with this 14:53:55 cpn: E.g. the Team Contact has a particular interest, and that's why they're involved in charter development 14:54:08 cpn: idk what this would look like, but some level of impartiality 14:54:14 cpn: because we're talking about a chairing role 14:54:23 florian: Agree, something different between leading something and chairing it 14:54:35 florian: we'll need to gain experience, and premature to describe precisely who will be chairing it 14:54:53 florian: how to pick is probably /Guide material 14:55:03 florian: sometimes may be Team Contact, sometimes may be Wg Chair, sometimes someone else 14:55:07 +1 14:55:07 florian: I'd leave open-ended for now 14:55:41 RESOLVED: Don't define who is the Chairing Facilitator, leave open-ended for now 14:56:18 florian: Next, Tess asks how to become a participant. It's intentionally open-ended. Seems good to me 14:56:43 fantasai: Seems fine, unless there's specific wording that can clarify 14:57:40 fantasai: Dom mentions this allows anyone in the public to raise FOs 14:58:12 ... I don't think we can restrict FOs to AC reps, and not sure that's a good idea. Batching them up the at end seems reasonable 14:58:37 TallTed: Is the decision to draft a charter a decision in this sense? 15:00:55 florian: Yes. If someone requests the team drafts a charter and it doesn't happen, you can object. But the other way round, it wouldn't be processed until the AC review. You can't prevent discussion of a charter by filing an FO 15:01:13 fantasai: Do we want to land this PR as is or keep discussing? 15:01:59 cpn: I have a concern that we're making changes to Process for something that needs experimentation. 15:02:15 cpn: If it works, great. But if we find that we put in place this new process and it needs adjustment... 15:02:32 cpn: is there a way to experiment with it, and once we're settled use that as the basis to update the Process? 15:02:40 florian: In a way I agree with you, but I also don't want to be blocked 15:02:55 florian: plh said they would experiment half a year ago, but haven't seen it... 15:03:06 TallTed: Call for implementations and set a timeframe for it 15:03:14 TallTed: We don't really have that CR phase for Process 15:04:23 florian: Team is currently doing chartering in open fashion right now 15:04:34 florian: but what we can't be open-ended about is the FO handling 15:04:49 florian: Team hasn't been quite as strict as this process, but largely like this 15:04:58 florian: How long would we need the experiment to be to be useful? 15:05:08 florian: How different from the current practice? 15:05:12 florian: Would rather not delay this by years. 15:06:21 cpn: Need defined procedures. Question is whether we do it in the Process, or elsewhere for awhile 15:06:29 cpn: I think we're close to what we can work with. 15:06:37 cpn: But if comfortable with iterating in Process document as we experiment 15:06:40 cpn: Then that's OK 15:07:23 fantasia: The Process is still a draft 15:07:24 cpn: By putting it into the Process at this stage, feels less experimental 15:07:40 TallTed: Could add it in with an issue note? 15:08:15 fantasai: I think we should fold this as is, and file issues about FOs or other concerns. 15:08:58 florian: The team doesn't use the editors draft of the process 15:10:23 RESOLVED: Adopt PR 851 Introduce formal Charter Refinement phase 15:10:31 Meeting closed. 15:10:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/24-w3process-minutes.html fantasai 15:11:00 RRSAgent, make minutes public 15:11:00 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', florian. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:11:55 rrsagent, make logs public