14:03:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:03:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-w3process-irc
14:03:21 <fantasai> Scribenick: fantasai
14:03:23 <fantasai> Chair: plh
14:03:29 <fantasai> Topic: Administrative
14:03:37 <fantasai> plh: Not meeting during TPAC
14:03:53 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Sep/0005.html
14:03:55 <TallTed> present+
14:03:58 <fantasai> plh: Any topics to add?
14:04:49 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests to Merge
14:04:56 <fantasai> Subtopic: Add REC maintenance to diagram
14:05:03 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/596
14:05:09 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/908
14:05:32 <fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge?
14:05:49 <fantasai> RESOLED: Merge
14:06:03 <fantasai> Subtopic: Explicitly mark figures as non-normative
14:06:10 <fantasai> github: Explicitly mark figures as non-normative
14:06:19 <fantasai> s/RESOLED/RESOLVED/
14:06:23 <cwilso> present+
14:06:30 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/911
14:06:32 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge
14:06:39 <fantasai> Subtopic: Deal with procedural disagreements within the Council
14:06:39 <cwilso> present+ plh, fantasai, florian
14:06:52 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/843
14:07:09 <fantasai> florian: This has happened once. I was chair of a Council, where Council could not agree about what it was allowed to do.
14:07:22 <fantasai> ... disagreement wasn't about the merits of the case, but whether we were allowed to rule on the question
14:07:32 <fantasai> ... as a chair I had no way to resolve, and no one to appeal to
14:07:41 <fantasai> ... if we all agree after some discussion, it's fine
14:07:50 <fantasai> ... but if we can't find consensus about what we're allowed to do, then what?
14:08:07 <plh> q+
14:08:23 <fantasai> florian: Proposal is to have the council vote on this, and then write it down as part of the decision, and AC can appeal if necessary
14:08:34 <fantasai> ... could do without writing into the Process, but [missed]
14:08:41 <fantasai> ... luckily in that Council we found a workaround
14:09:39 <cwilso> -1 to Florian being a bad Council chair.  :)
14:09:40 <fantasai> plh: One thing is what do we do in this case. Other is where do we document it.
14:09:58 <fantasai> ... in a WG, when there's disagreement about the Process, the chairs turn to the Team and ask Team to interpret the process
14:10:13 <fantasai> ... the Team is tasked to provide interpretation of the Process, which allows us to move forward when Process is not clear etc.
14:10:24 <fantasai> ... if you disagree with the Team, we say raise an issue against Process
14:10:33 <fantasai> ... We do this all the time; the Team interpets the Process.
14:10:46 <florian> s/but [missed]/but when it happened to me as a chair of the council, I failed to unlock the situation without a rule to base that resolution on
14:10:49 <fantasai> ... sometimes we even disagree with the Process editors, but we discuss and find a consensus
14:11:43 <fantasai> plh: The Team doesn't really participate in the Council. Have a Team Contact, though, so can ask the Team Contact to provide an interpretation. Could have a discussion, but can do the same.
14:11:55 <fantasai> ... other solution is to have a vote to resolve the matter
14:12:07 <fantasai> ... my worry is consistency among the councils
14:12:28 <fantasai> florian: Required to write it down, so at least precedence is documented
14:13:15 <fantasai> plh: Those are the two paths. I suggest instead of documenting in Process, document in Guidebook
14:13:20 <plh> ack plh
14:13:24 <plh> ack fantasai
14:13:54 <plh> fantasai: having the Team making the call makes more sense than doing a vote in the Council
14:14:10 <plh> ... will give more flexibility
14:14:16 <plh> ... and we should document in the guidebook
14:14:25 <florian> q+
14:14:33 <fantasai> plh: Team would be having a conversation, not just making a decision.
14:14:48 <plh> ack florian
14:14:48 <fantasai> ... and will likely end up in Process or Guidebook issue, to document the question better
14:14:55 <fantasai> florian: I'm unconvinced that asking the Team will help
14:15:07 <fantasai> ... but what if some members of the Council don't accept the Team's advice?
14:15:18 <fantasai> ... However putting it in the Guide is a reasonable place to start.
14:15:19 <plh> q+
14:15:28 <fantasai> ... Not certain it provides enough gravitas, but might.
14:15:56 <fantasai> ... if disagreements, then chair can decide what to do
14:16:01 <fantasai> ... but either way, should document in the report
14:16:15 <fantasai> ... But anyway, put it in the guide so it's not the chair making things up seems reasonable
14:16:41 <fantasai> plh: Regarding the Team, can only involve if it's about interpreting the Process.
14:16:51 <fantasai> ... as it applies to operations of the Council.
14:17:03 <fantasai> ... if it's about the material of the FO itself, then that's different
14:17:30 <fantasai> florian: Example is, FO against a decision. If you sustain the decision, it undoes the decision.
14:17:46 <fantasai> ... but might not be clarity on what the decision is, or what the consequences of upholding vs overturning the FO means
14:18:24 <fantasai> ... Council has a limited scope in what it can do
14:20:19 <fantasai> plh: Maybe Team is not seen as sufficiently neutral in some of these cases.
14:20:42 <fantasai> fantasai: I think the Team and the chair together would be sufficient for resolving questions about interpretations of the Process
14:21:07 <fantasai> plh: I would be OK with putting Team in the guidebook. Can make a recommendation to the Chair, and then it's a Chair Decision.
14:21:52 <fantasai> florian: Yes, let's just document that this is something you can decide about, and if you do mention it in the report
14:21:57 <fantasai> plh: Yeah, let's document this in the Guide
14:22:33 <fantasai> [dicussions about drafting Guide stuff]
14:22:51 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #w3process
14:23:21 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Put something in the Guide
14:23:55 <fantasai> Subtopic: Tighten the how subtantive changes are handled post AC-Review
14:24:05 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/825
14:24:13 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/910
14:24:54 <fantasai> florian: Practice isn't too far from this
14:24:56 <TallTed> q+
14:25:24 <fantasai> ... areas of difference are that if you increase the scope, you must go to AC
14:26:02 <fantasai> ... also bring clarity about when people disagree with changes that are proposed after AC Review intended to resolve an objection
14:26:13 <fantasai> ... most people happy with those changes, a few are not, then it's a weird situation
14:26:26 <fantasai> ... people who disagree with the proposed changes can disagree without making an FO, and then what?
14:26:29 <fantasai> ... what does that mean?
14:26:58 <fantasai> ... can we overrule their non-formal objection?
14:27:12 <fantasai> ... makes it clear that if you disagree, it counts as an FO, and existing Council gets to rule on it
14:28:01 <plh> ack TallTed
14:28:04 <plh> ack plh
14:28:10 <fantasai> TallTed: the "may only" phrasing, is usually restrictive
14:28:30 <fantasai> ... to entirely clear if that's intended
14:28:42 <fantasai> florian: I intended a restriction. If you don't have consensus, you cannot adopt.
14:28:59 <fantasai> TallTed: then suggest "only if" instead of "may only"
14:29:03 <fantasai> florian: sure
14:29:19 <fantasai> plh: wfm
14:29:21 <fantasai> fantasai: wfm
14:29:54 <cwilso> q+
14:30:05 <plh> ack cwilso
14:31:00 <fantasai> [haggling over wording]
14:33:18 <fantasai> fantasai: For the second one, agree that it reads "better" in an absolute sence with it moved, but the reason it's pulled forward is to emphasize that phrase since the sentence is about this particular timing of the FO.
14:33:43 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept PR with only in "may only" moved to "only if".
14:33:51 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Discuss
14:33:57 <fantasai> Subtopic: Should member submissions be removed from the Process?
14:34:08 <fantasai> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/648
14:34:33 <fantasai> florian: People complain that the Process is too long. Most of the text needs to be there, but some of it maybe can be removed.
14:34:39 <fantasai> florian: Member Submissions seem like that kind of thing.
14:34:53 <fantasai> ... They don't need to be in the Process, really.
14:34:59 <fantasai> ... Team could retain ability to put stuff on the W3C Website
14:35:26 <fantasai> ... Putting these in the Process guarantees the right to make a Member Submission
14:35:36 <fantasai> ... ~4 pages of text, seems like a lot for what it does
14:36:01 <fantasai> florian: Once upon a time, this was how you started work at W3C. But CGs largely make this redundant.
14:36:43 <fantasai> ... One thing that makes Member Submissions interesting is that Members are required to say whether they would license relevant patents
14:37:03 <fantasai> ... Not sure we need to keep this, suggest to delete this section.
14:37:28 <fantasai> plh: If we remove from Process, no longer guaranteed. Up to Team what they do about it.
14:38:08 <fantasai> ... I would be ok with moving to Guide
14:38:18 <fantasai> ... but would want to ask others about it
14:38:38 <fantasai> florian: We could simplify the section. Say that you can do this, Team says how you do it.
14:38:39 <TallTed> q+
14:38:44 <fantasai> ... there's a lot of formalism about it
14:39:06 <fantasai> plh: We would want to keep the formalism. We've had situations [missed]
14:39:18 <fantasai> ... if it moves into Guide, becomes responsibility of the Team
14:39:28 <florian> s/Team says how you do it./Team says how you do it. The current formalism is very heavy
14:39:52 <fantasai> plh: Member Submissions is a Member right, so unsure.
14:39:54 <plh> ack ted
14:40:14 <fantasai> TallTed: my experience of Member Submissions is that historically they were a way to skip a level of incubation and proceed directly to a WG.
14:40:29 <fantasai> ... not so much being used as a turf declaration, although that is an aspect of it
14:40:45 <fantasai> ... Member Submission becomes a tacit admission that this is a valid way to handle a thing, rather than just spitballing
14:40:56 <fantasai> ... I don't know that they're completely useful today given CG
14:41:00 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
14:41:09 <plh> q?
14:41:11 <fantasai> ... but also not sure they're entirely useless
14:41:12 <plh> ack tall
14:41:47 <fantasai> ACTION: plh to ask around about removing Member Submissions
14:41:56 <cwilso> q+
14:41:58 <tantek> present+
14:42:27 <fantasai> florian: The maintenance cost isn't very high. Mainly changed only by e.g. introduction of the Council
14:42:46 <fantasai> ... but there's the cost on the readers, makes Process longer
14:43:59 <fantasai> fantasai: What if we move most of the formalism to Guide, and just keep the minimal bits in the Process
14:44:24 <fantasai> ... like the patent commitments, and which decisions can be objected to, etc.
14:44:28 <tantek> q+
14:44:33 <plh> ack cwilso
14:44:34 <fantasai> florian: Note that Member Submissions are mentioned in the Patent Policy
14:44:44 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm in favor of just dropping Member Submissions as a thing.
14:45:02 <fantasai> ... don't seem to add anything over what you can do in a CG
14:45:27 <fantasai> ... and despite the text saying that publication implies no endorsement, probably is taken that way
14:45:36 <plh> ack tantek
14:45:46 <fantasai> tantek: I have actually some experience with this
14:46:13 <fantasai> ... when Social Web WG formed, there were a number of submissions by organizations offering in theme of "please base on this work / be compatible with this work"
14:46:20 <fantasai> ... these submissions were all offered royalty-free
14:46:30 <fantasai> ... none of those organizations participated in the WG
14:46:54 <fantasai> ... the effect the submissions had was a whole bunch of IP that those submissions covered were given to the WG
14:47:09 <fantasai> ... E.g. OpenSocial was submitted, it was huge across many companies
14:47:19 <plh> q+
14:47:32 <fantasai> ... idk if it impacted specs, but it gave people some level of confidence and less fear that the stuff we were designing / speccing would overlap with existing IP
14:48:42 <fantasai> ... idk if that's worth keeping the whole section of Process, but that was a positive use of Member Submissions
14:49:05 <plh> ack fantasai
14:49:19 <fantasai> ... idk how often it occurs, but having Members who aren't interested in participating in WG but want to enable them to build on their work, it's useful
14:49:56 <plh> fantasai: we don't have to remove Member submissions. we could narrow it down to what really needs to be there and push the rest in the Guidebook
14:50:25 <fantasai> florian: so we keep that it exists, patent policy applies, any disagreements get kicked to council
14:50:28 <tantek> +1 fantasai, florian
14:50:28 <fantasai> plh: ok with me
14:50:59 <fantasai> plh: Sometimes easier to do a Member Submission than spin up / join CG
14:51:04 <fantasai> ... for the purpose of providing IP
14:51:38 <tantek> +1 plh agreed, it was easier for these orgs to do the Member Submissions than join the IG/WG (and get review for that)
14:51:41 <fantasai> florian: OK, so we have an action item to replace the text with something minimal and push the rest to Guidebook
14:52:21 <fantasai> ACTION: florian and fantasai to create minimal Member Submissions section and push non-critical text to Guide
14:52:22 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/Guide/blob/main/process/member-submissions.html
14:52:45 <fantasai> Topic: TPAC
14:52:52 <fantasai> plh: No meetings scheduled for ProcessCG
14:53:02 <fantasai> ... and no proposal for breakout so far. Could make one if you want.
14:53:08 <fantasai> ... two breakouts relevant to us
14:53:16 <florian> q+
14:53:20 <fantasai> Simplifying the Updatable REC Process -> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/648
14:53:21 <plh> q-
14:53:30 <fantasai> Registries for W3C Specifications -> https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/24
14:53:53 <plh> ack florian
14:54:15 <fantasai> florian: Wrt simplifying updatable REC process, 3 buckets
14:54:29 <fantasai> ... 1. not actually about Process. About improving tooling or practices
14:54:42 <fantasai> ... 2. let's simplify steps in the Process, without changing end result
14:54:50 <fantasai> ... e.g. like removing PR stage
14:54:59 <fantasai> ... still have same requirements, just the path is a little different
14:55:09 <fantasai> ... I think there's some amount of process we could make here
14:55:38 <fantasai> ... but different from "look at how simple things could be if didn't need consensus" or "look how simple could be if we didn't need implementation experience"
14:55:44 <fantasai> ... which would change what a REC is
14:56:39 <fantasai> ... 3. simplifications we could make if we change properties of a REC, e.g. don't need consensus / horizontal review / patent protection / implementation experience
14:57:00 <fantasai> ... no reason we can't explore that space, but don't disguise that as procedural adjustments
14:58:29 <plh> --> https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/11 Simplifying the Updatable REC Process
14:58:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
14:59:02 <fantasai> plh: Thread on Chairs list about Charter Refinement Phase
14:59:25 <fantasai> Proposed W3C Process Change: Charter Refinement Phase -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2024JulSep/0057.html
14:59:36 <fantasai> plh: we're going to trial this for CSSWG and ???
15:00:07 <tantek> q?
15:00:34 <tantek> q+ to suggest if someone wants to discuss "How to make living standards work at W3C" since no one has gotten this right yet AFAIK
15:00:38 <fantasai> plh: Also [missed], which like CSS is huge, and new WG
15:00:51 <plh> ack tantek
15:00:51 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to suggest if someone wants to discuss "How to make living standards work at W3C" since no one has gotten this right yet AFAIK
15:01:29 <fantasai> tantek: wrt TPAC ideas, could ask how to do living standards at W3C. Have yet to see it done in a way that works. E.g. charters try to do this, but have nonsense exit conditions, etc.
15:01:43 <fantasai> plh: see breakout about updateable REC
15:02:00 <fantasai> florian: There are a few small-scale successful applications. don't know about any large ones.
15:02:13 <fantasai> plh: agree we still need to prove we can do it successfully; that's what this session is about
15:02:31 <fantasai> tantek: simplifying process would be really boring
15:03:15 <fantasai> fantasai: breakout is about making updatable REC more workable, not about redesigning the Process
15:03:28 <fantasai> plh: I think we need to still learn from our current Process, and try to make it work
15:03:30 <TallTed> I'm very interested in the topic of living/evergreen standards and/or updatable recs. But must jump to next call.
15:03:35 <fantasai> ... if we can't, then we can go back to drawing board
15:04:28 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
15:04:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:02:01 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
17:27:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process