14:56:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #cg-revamp
14:56:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-cg-revamp-irc
14:56:59 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, do not leave
14:57:00 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:01 <tpac-breakout-bot> Meeting: Community Group Program Enhancements
14:57:01 <tpac-breakout-bot> Chair: Ian Jacobs, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
14:57:01 <tpac-breakout-bot> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/63
14:57:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #cg-revamp
14:57:02 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, clear agenda
14:57:03 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:57:03 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe
14:57:03 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
14:57:03 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
14:57:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
14:57:03 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session
14:57:04 <Zakim> agendum 3 added
14:57:04 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Discussion
14:57:04 <Zakim> agendum 4 added
14:57:04 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues
14:57:06 <Zakim> agendum 5 added
14:57:06 <tpac-breakout-bot> tpac-breakout-bot has left #cg-revamp
16:39:16 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #cg-revamp
16:39:36 <mgarrish> mgarrish has left #cg-revamp
16:40:28 <dschuff> dschuff has joined #cg-revamp
16:51:28 <Steven> Steven has joined #cg-revamp
16:58:16 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #cg-revamp
16:58:46 <dom> dom has joined #cg-revamp
16:58:57 <EgeKorkan> EgeKorkan has joined #cg-revamp
16:59:17 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #cg-revamp
16:59:20 <dschuff> dschuff has joined #cg-revamp
16:59:25 <wendyreid> present+
16:59:26 <gendler> gendler has joined #cg-revamp
17:00:33 <anusha> anusha has joined #cg-revamp
17:00:37 <dom> Slideset: https://www.w3.org/2024/Talks/TPAC/cg-breakout/
17:01:16 <westbrook7> westbrook7 has joined #cg-revamp
17:01:32 <gendler> present+
17:01:34 <westbrook> westbrook has joined #cg-revamp
17:01:35 <hiroki_endo> hiroki_endo has joined #cg-revamp
17:01:56 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #cg-revamp
17:02:11 <tzviya8> tzviya8 has joined #cg-revamp
17:02:18 <tzviya8> present+
17:02:33 <dom> Present+
17:02:36 <dom> Present+ Ian
17:02:40 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #cg-revamp
17:02:57 <ben> ben has joined #cg-revamp
17:03:23 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #cg-revamp
17:03:43 <Maud> Maud has joined #cg-revamp
17:04:29 <dom> [slide 2]
17:04:34 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
17:04:36 <George> George has joined #cg-revamp
17:04:52 <George> present+
17:04:56 <fantasai> IanJ reviews the slides
17:05:03 <dom> [slide 3]
17:05:10 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
17:05:13 <fantasai> IJ: 6 CGs maintaining RECs
17:05:16 <naomi> present+
17:05:27 <fantasai> IJ: Sometimes work starts in a CG, establish twinned CG
17:05:31 <fantasai> s/CG/WG/
17:05:48 <fantasai> IJ: But WGs at W3C aren't the only destination, sometimes they go to WHATWG, schema.org, IETF, ECMA
17:06:04 <dom> [slide 4]
17:06:15 <ben> present+
17:06:24 <mgarrish> present+
17:06:25 <fantasai> IJ: Given all of our experience, and evolution of W3C, how do we more systematically align the CG program with our mission
17:06:32 <BrianE> present+
17:06:51 <fantasai> IJ: Setting aside CGs that don't produce specifications
17:07:08 <dom> [slide 5]
17:07:12 <fantasai> IJ: "As CG specifications gain traction on the way to standardization, the enhancements should increase alignment with W3C mission"
17:07:19 <fantasai> IJ: Some assumptions
17:07:32 <fantasai> ... we want CGs to be lightweight, no cost to participate, easy to propose or join groups
17:07:38 <fantasai> ... especially during early i ncubation phases
17:07:56 <cwilso> cwilso has joined #cg-revamp
17:07:59 <cwilso> present+
17:08:02 <fantasai> ... some ppl thought maybe we could have WGs do specs and CGs to do non-specs; but we would like CGs to continue to incubate specs
17:08:18 <fantasai> ... but we don't want CGs to become like WGs. We want WGs to fulfill their purpose, CGs different purpose
17:08:25 <fantasai> ... just want to fine-tune for mission-alignment
17:08:40 <fantasai> ... some discussion of single process for incubation + standardization; but don't think we should do that
17:08:42 <csarven> csarven has joined #cg-revamp
17:08:47 <fantasai> ... don't want to create a new standards program
17:09:05 <dom> [slide 6]
17:09:13 <fantasai> IJ: Some concerns
17:09:30 <fantasai> ... risks from CG spec that hast too much traction, delayed from becoming a standard with guarantees
17:09:44 <wendyreid> s/hast/has/
17:09:56 <fantasai> ... there's then a misperception that because it has traction, has W3C standards-track guarantees
17:10:01 <fantasai> ... but not true
17:10:11 <fantasai> ... Issue is big delay between big delay and advancement to WG
17:10:21 <fantasai> [slide 7]
17:10:22 <dom> [slide 7]
17:10:51 <fantasai> IJ: Guarantees: mission-alignment, IPR guarantees -- stronger ones in WG
17:11:00 <fantasai> ... quality controls e.g. wide review, testing, etc.
17:11:05 <fantasai> ... implementation experience
17:11:19 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #cg-revamp
17:11:27 <fantasai> ... and process guarantees -- was it produced in an environment where all participants have a voice, appeals process, etc. Standards-track
17:11:32 <fantasai> ... and lastly broad stakeholder awareness and involvement
17:11:54 <fantasai> ... Lack of these guarantees expected in CGs, but when something gainst traction needs those; and problems if there's a long delay before standardization
17:11:57 <fantasai> [slide 8]
17:12:08 <fantasai> IJ: obstacles to participation for contributing non-Members ...
17:12:15 <fantasai> ... as we said, REC track is how you get guarantees at W3C
17:12:33 <fantasai> ... but ppl reticent to transition to WG, and that doesn't get those guarantees
17:12:46 <fantasai> ... so we want to facilitate continued participation in a WG by non-Members who have made significant contriutions to a CG specification
17:12:54 <fantasai> [slide 9]
17:13:03 <fantasai> IJ: So we might need to upgrade CG
17:13:26 <fantasai> ... review program and make sure it's up to expectation
17:13:33 <fantasai> ... also we have lots of experience with CG now,
17:13:41 <fantasai> ... and standardization ecosystem changes
17:13:44 <fantasai> [slide 10]
17:13:57 <fantasai> IJ: Want to help ppl understand guarantees of CGs vs WGs
17:14:05 <fantasai> ... support chairs and participatns so they can do good work
17:14:10 <fantasai> ... and be inclusive and aligned to the mission
17:14:22 <fantasai> ... and conducive to productivity
17:14:30 <fantasai> ... if a group is floundering, either help it or stop it
17:14:43 <fantasai> [slide 11]
17:14:52 <fantasai> IJ: We want to increase guarantees as traction increases
17:15:05 <fantasai> ... but don't want to increase burden on early phases of incubation
17:15:17 <fantasai> ... reduce friction to WG transition
17:15:30 <fantasai> ... crisper "move up or move out" expectation; don't want CGs to languish forever
17:15:38 <fantasai> ... clearer expectation of their standardization plans
17:16:00 <fantasai> ... no rush, through discussion, but are you going to WG/ECMA? not go anywhere stay CG? abandon work?
17:16:10 <fantasai> [slide 12]
17:16:30 <fantasai> IJ: One concept important here is notion of guarantees. Another concept is traction.
17:16:41 <fantasai> ... we care less about specs without traction, except we prune if not going anywhere
17:16:47 <fantasai> .. but when spec has traction, need to take action
17:16:49 <florian_irc> florian_irc has joined #cg-revamp
17:16:50 <fantasai> s/../.../
17:16:56 <fantasai> ... So early traction:
17:17:06 <fantasai> ... intent to prototype / impement / ship from browsers
17:17:11 <fantasai> ... references from other REC-track deliverables
17:17:16 <fantasai> ... references other SDOs
17:17:32 <fantasai> ... mentions by regulators
17:17:43 <fantasai> ... expressions of interest from relevant stakeholders beyond CG members
17:17:53 <fantasai> ... pilots
17:17:56 <fantasai> ... multiple contirbutors to a spec
17:18:00 <fantasai> [slide 13]
17:18:22 <fantasai> IJ: For significant traction, e.g. multiple shipping features, significant adoption in the world even if only one implementation
17:18:28 <fantasai> ... or two or more implementations or announcements of intent
17:18:38 <fantasai> ... so may want to take different steps at different periods of traction
17:18:42 <fantasai> ... not one-size-fits-all
17:18:50 <fantasai> [slide 14]
17:19:05 <fantasai> IJ: Started to log topics so ppl can contribute via GH issues
17:19:35 <fantasai> Additional decision / appeal requirements for specifications with traction -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/23
17:19:51 <florian_irc> q+
17:19:56 <fantasai> Set "Move up or move out" expectation -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/22
17:20:12 <fantasai> How do we establish that a CG Specification has traction? -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/21
17:20:23 <fantasai> What is the full lifecyle of a CG specification? -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/20
17:20:35 <fantasai> CG Specifications with traction that do not advance to a WG may weaken or harm the W3C mission -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/19
17:20:46 <fantasai> Facilitating continued participation in a Working Group -> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues/18
17:20:53 <fantasai> IJ: Looking for feedback on these
17:21:10 <fantasai> dom: Lots of successes, looking to where to improve where CGs introduce ambiguity or gaps
17:21:23 <fantasai> ... gap between traction and specification
17:21:39 <fantasai> ... e.g. specs that have 3 implementatoins, but still in CG report
17:22:08 <fantasai> ... coming from a lot of feedback from community wrt ambiguity or lack of clarity wrt CG program
17:22:29 <fantasai> [slides 15]
17:22:29 <dom> q?
17:22:35 <dom> ack florian_irc
17:22:48 <fantasai> florian_irc: I like the direction. Want to add an extra concern.
17:22:59 <fantasai> ... you mention some of the time successful work graduates to places other than W3C WGs
17:23:07 <fantasai> ... in principle that's great, helping the ecosystem
17:23:10 <cwilso> q+
17:23:20 <fantasai> ... but IPR concerns with this, because have good coupling with our IPR policy but not other SDOs
17:23:23 <wendyreid> q+
17:23:37 <fantasai> ... wrt move up or out -- if something that has traction and we push it out of the patent policy that's not great
17:23:53 <fantasai> ... idk what we can do, but let's not amplify cases where we have holes in patent policy
17:23:59 <dom> qq+ dsinger
17:24:17 <fantasai> IJ: I proposed to the AB an approach for that situation, where we work organizations -- especially ones where we expect work to go with them -- where we come up with an MOU
17:24:28 <fantasai> ... and we not change the CLA, because we want lightweight for early work
17:24:54 <fantasai> ... but when there's an emerging destination and there's support in the ecosystem, create a Final Specification Agreement coupled with MOU
17:24:56 <tzviya8> q+ to talk about transition to membership, tooling, community
17:25:00 <fantasai> ... negotiate each outcome with each organizatin
17:25:11 <fantasai> ... doesn't cover case of a new organization, but I think it's handle-able
17:25:19 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #cg-revamp
17:25:23 <dom> ack dsinger
17:25:23 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to react to florian_irc
17:25:40 <fantasai> dsinger: Florian said there's a good match between CG and WG IPR policies, but actually I think we have a problem.
17:25:52 <fantasai> ... because we have problem with getting ppl to sign a Final Specification Agreement
17:26:30 <fantasai> ... if only some members of the CG migrate to WG, then you have concerns around whether the commitments of non-transitioned members move with the spec to the WG
17:26:49 <fantasai> ... so if another member of the CG contributes an idea, but I have a patent on that idea, there's no license for that patent
17:26:53 <fantasai> ... without an FSA
17:27:02 <fantasai> ... so we have some serious mismatch for CG -> Wg transition
17:27:15 <fantasai> IJ: We didn't have in-scope for this project revisiting the CLA
17:27:38 <fantasai> ... in a WG there are a lot of tools to manage the ecosystem of ppl who might have essential claims who are not in the WG
17:27:42 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #cg-revamp
17:27:44 <fantasai> ... e.g. reciprocal grant provision
17:27:46 <florian_irc> s/because have good coupling with our IPR policy/because have coupling with our IPR policy
17:28:02 <fantasai> ... I believe in a court of law, it would look bad for someone to assert...
17:28:18 <fantasai> ... I can pull my RF grant away from someone who won't grant themselves
17:28:26 <fantasai> ... but if we can find a better way to get FSAs
17:28:34 <fantasai> dsinger: in matters of the law, shame is a very thin defense
17:28:42 <fantasai> ... I'm not saying the CLA needs revision
17:28:51 <fantasai> ... but we have an issue here.
17:29:00 <dom> q?
17:29:09 <hiroki_endo> present+
17:29:11 <fantasai> IJ: Making it easier to get into a WG from non-members is important
17:29:25 <dsinger> s/in matters of the law/in matters of the law and money/
17:29:26 <fantasai> Dom: Part of what we look at is operationally improving transitions
17:29:39 <fantasai> ... e.g. seeing what's the gap between FSA and CG membership, etc.
17:29:40 <kirkwood> present+
17:30:03 <fantasai> cwilso: You mentioned in the notes, do you intend the Community Council CG to be a more active discussion place for this?
17:30:08 <fantasai> dom: yes, please join
17:30:30 <fantasai> cwilso: Agree with dsinger with some caveat. Totally agree that FSA is nearly impossible to get, especially from large companies who have large patent portfolios
17:30:36 <fantasai> ... not much upside, lots of potential downside
17:30:42 <fantasai> ... a lot easier to do when we charter a WG
17:30:58 <fantasai> cwilso: I want to say, having looked at this recently, for a CG to WG transition I'm comfortable with what we do today
17:31:11 <fantasai> ... operationally not quite implemented in practice as idea, but it works and locks things in
17:31:18 <fantasai> ... however, this does not work when the spec goes outside of W3C
17:31:25 <fantasai> ... that is a primary concern, particularly when things go to WHATWG
17:31:33 <fantasai> ... it was covered when we were republishing WHATWG specs, but not anymore
17:31:43 <fantasai> ... I don't think we can fix that problem without changing the CLA in some way
17:32:00 <fantasai> ... but 100% agree with dsinger that "it would look bad for you" is not a sufficient defense
17:32:10 <tzviya8> +1 to magic IPR
17:32:13 <fantasai> ... we must set things up as a waterfall that automatically happens when you sign up for a group
17:32:34 <dom> q?
17:32:37 <fantasai> ... really difficult to get signed agreements
17:32:46 <dom> ack cwilso
17:33:08 <fantasai> IJ: It may also be difficult ... let's say CLA said, this is how transition to W3C works, and here's how transition to WHATWG works, and here's how transition to ECMA works, etc.
17:33:19 <fantasai> ... would it be harder for lawyers to sign that?
17:33:32 <fantasai> cwilso: harder, but that difficulty is warranted
17:33:33 <dom> ack wendyreid
17:34:02 <fantasai> wendyreid: Noticed in discussions, things in CGs that have traction, where ppl asking "why isn't this on the REC track"
17:34:04 <cwilso> s/warranted/warranted, but that's probably (off the cuff) the most promising approach
17:34:10 <fantasai> ... just this week talked about web speech API and scroll-to-text-fragment
17:34:18 <fantasai> ... Why aren't these in WGs?
17:34:24 <fantasai> ... and follow-up is, who is taking that work?
17:34:34 <fantasai> ... we make mistake that 1 CG = 1 WG, but that's not always the case
17:34:43 <fantasai> ... some don't need a WG of their own, could fit into workload of an existing WG
17:34:49 <fantasai> ... but I see challenges there
17:34:58 <fantasai> ... 1. how to identify the group?
17:35:07 <fantasai> ... 2. charter might not include this work
17:35:24 <fantasai> ... So creating a pathway for addition that is lighter-weight than a recharter
17:35:30 <fantasai> fantasai: we do have a charter amendment process
17:35:46 <fantasai> Dom: Part of program enhancements is to help CGs to have a plan
17:35:58 <fantasai> ... realize that when you start a spec, question will come up of where does it go
17:36:07 <fantasai> ... TAG will ask CG reports, what is your standardization target
17:36:10 <fantasai> ... want to make that more systematic
17:36:18 <fantasai> ... So both setting expectation, and also increasing training
17:36:39 <fantasai> ... When a spec has early traction, and we have early signs of what WG it would target, then we can start the chartering conversations earlier
17:36:48 <fantasai> ... rather than 3 implementations and no chartered group and nobody knows what to do
17:36:57 <fantasai> .. for existing situations, need some clean-up. E.g. web speech API
17:37:06 <fantasai> ... has been implemented for years, still CG spec; that's not right
17:37:13 <cwilso> q?
17:37:13 <fantasai> ... not sure what's the right solution, but it's a problem
17:37:21 <fantasai> ... but staff will be there askign the hard quesitons and starting the discussions
17:37:25 <cwilso> q+ to talk about friction increase
17:37:25 <fantasai> ... that's goal of enhancements
17:37:30 <csarven> Is the queue for remote participants taken into account or only IRC?
17:37:43 <fantasai> tzviya8: Also want to talk about transition from CG to WG
17:37:47 <fantasai> ... Ian and I working on this
17:37:56 <fantasai> ... very different when ppl who know W3C well and when don't
17:38:02 <fantasai> ... cost of W3C...
17:38:10 <fantasai> ... We have a very unusual culture. If you're in CG, you can do whatever
17:38:15 <fantasai> ... can take minutes in Google docs
17:38:32 <fantasai> ... Hear all the time about better unified tooling, but when transition to WG and they have to change verything
17:38:40 <fantasai> ... that's uncomfortable
17:38:52 <fantasai> ... Either need to start CG on our tooling, or have really good training and support for the transition
17:39:09 <fantasai> ... same with GH repos. People don't always use W3C repo, transitioning is annoying
17:39:18 <fantasai> ... other aspect is, at least in some CGs there's a real sense of community
17:39:31 <fantasai> ... and I know you try to help people join as IEs
17:39:41 <fantasai> ... but sometimes keep CG just for the community to hang out
17:39:45 <csarven> dom , not sure if you can see but there are hands raised on Zoom
17:39:47 <EgeKorkan> q+
17:39:56 <tzviya8> ack me
17:39:57 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about transition to membership, tooling, community
17:39:59 <dom> scribe+
17:40:13 <dom> fantasai: +1 to Chris on needing to solve the IPR transition
17:40:25 <dom> q+ Rahul
17:40:45 <dom> fantasai: for a company like Apple, we need to know very specifically the scope of a CG before we can join it
17:40:54 <dom> ... especially if that scope is malleable
17:41:24 <dom> ... this needs very careful and usually ends up having us having very limited ability to contribute directly to CG (vs WG/WHATWG)
17:41:41 <dom> ... changing the output target of a CG to e.g. WHATWG is probably less of a concern
17:42:16 <dom> ... +1 to Wendy and Tzviya on improving transitions; +1 to having staff support the CG identify the path forward and help with the transition
17:42:28 <cwilso> q- later
17:42:39 <dom> ... I don't want us to recreate even a small portion of the W3C Process in the CG context - it should happen in WGs
17:42:57 <dom> q+ Sarven
17:42:59 <cwilso> +1
17:43:03 <dom> ack fantasai
17:43:37 <cwilso> +1 on scope changing/malleability
17:43:44 <dom> fantasai: the malleability of the scope of a charter is an issue
17:43:50 <cwilso> q- later
17:43:55 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #cg-revamp
17:43:57 <dom> florian: this leads to getting any contribution reviewed by lawyers
17:44:43 <fantasai> i/fantasai: the malleability/IJ: would tighter scope help?/
17:44:49 <fantasai> s/the malleability/yes, but also the malleability/
17:45:04 <dom> ack Rahul
17:45:07 <fantasai> Rahul: I've been contributing to SOLID CG for 4 years, and we just transitioned to Web Storage WG
17:45:20 <fantasai> ... during the transition we had a long process where we were publishing our specs under MIT license
17:45:41 <fantasai> ... then drew up a charter, and we transitioned W3C Software and Document License
17:45:54 <fantasai> ... when transition to WG happened, decided that no you can only publish your specs under a CLA
17:46:03 <fantasai> ... troube with CLA, it asks me to give up all my rights, but CG doesn't have to give up its rights
17:46:09 <fantasai> ... so it went from open spec to all rights reserved
17:46:14 <fantasai> ... I had a long back-and-forth about this
17:46:22 <fantasai> ... but said relicensing spec would create problem
17:46:27 <fantasai> ... either process or CLA is flawed
17:46:40 <fantasai> ... it said that [missed]
17:46:46 <fantasai> ... it's going to discourage people
17:46:57 <fantasai> ... I will have to withdraw the spec that I authored instead of signing FSA
17:47:02 <fantasai> ... feel that my contributions are not being valued
17:47:22 <fantasai> IJ: IANAL, so reluctant to say anything else, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the CG owns the spec
17:47:33 <fantasai> ... the contributors own their contributions, and they agree to license them under CLA
17:47:46 <fantasai> ... the set of contributors owns the specification
17:47:52 <fantasai> Rahul: Then why does it say published by CG?
17:48:11 <fantasai> IJ: You can publish in the sense of "make available as an aggregation, where each contribution is owned by its contributor"
17:48:20 <fantasai> ... CLA says licensed by the contributors under the CLA
17:48:29 <fantasai> ... so the CG is just creating an aggregation
17:48:46 <fantasai> Rahul: if even that language change was instead of "published by" instead of "available by"
17:48:50 <cwilso> q?
17:49:07 <fantasai> ... but when we discussed license, we should have been told that we published under the CLA
17:49:12 <fantasai> ... TimBL asked for an exception
17:49:31 <fantasai> IJ: When CG process says specifications published by CGs use these licenses, that's known and part of the process
17:49:43 <fantasai> ... I don't recall any conversation with Tim, but let's review that offline if you like
17:50:04 <fantasai> Rahul: Sure, but this kind of back and forth is impediment to transition
17:50:22 <fantasai> IJ: Coversation of improving support for transition, building a shared understanding of licensing is something we can improve
17:50:27 <dom> ack EgeKorkan
17:50:46 <fantasai> EgeKorkan: Web of Things WG and twin CG. We did the reverse transition, actually, where we revived CG
17:50:51 <fantasai> ... but want to keep using tools we're used to
17:51:03 <fantasai> ... as mentioned by Tzviya, impossible because tools owned by staff
17:51:10 <fantasai> ... so if you don't have staff then the minuting tools, zoom, etc don't work
17:51:13 <fantasai> ... procedurally
17:51:23 <fantasai> ... so if we want CG to use same tools in the beginning, then need associated
17:51:33 <fantasai> Dom: Thanks, that's twice we've heard that tooling transition shoudl be part of our exploration
17:51:54 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
17:51:56 <fantasai> Sarven: Acknowledge some issues that are heart of this conversation
17:52:02 <fantasai> ... one is facilitating continued participation
17:52:05 <dsinger> q+ to mention branding and identity
17:52:21 <dom> ack Sarven
17:52:31 <fantasai> ... but some of the concrete things include acknowledging the contributions of the CG contributors
17:52:47 <fantasai> ... worked on this, not just signing off, but can join the Wg
17:52:52 <fantasai> ... and if in good graces with chair can join as IE
17:53:07 <fantasai> ... if there's no assurance about continuity is in place
17:53:15 <fantasai> ... from key contributors to specifications that are used as input to the WG
17:53:34 <fantasai> ... then it comes across as, there's a body of individuals contirubting their time and labor into advancing the specification
17:53:38 <anusha> q+ clarify the example of the storage access spec not being adopted by whatwg currently
17:53:39 <fantasai> ... but not ultimately part of that whole story
17:53:52 <fantasai> ... so incubation period, but not so much being part of REC track
17:53:57 <tzviya8> q+ anusha
17:54:05 <fantasai> ... appreciate some issues updating charter draft etc, want to see that continue
17:54:13 <fantasai> ... good signal to continue that existing contributors are part of that story
17:54:23 <fantasai> ... perhaps more fit to continue working on the specs as opposed to random participants
17:54:34 <fantasai> ... because in WG becoming editors, authors
17:54:52 <fantasai> ... issue 18 on the CG Council seems adequate, but stronger language or more assurance along those lines would help
17:55:09 <fantasai> Dom: Yes, that is what we want to address. If you invested time and resources in an effort, don't feel that it takes away from you.
17:55:19 <fantasai> ... yes, moving to a WG is a change, differnet processes, new people
17:55:19 <naomi_> naomi_ has joined #cg-revamp
17:55:24 <fantasai> ... but don't want to feel excluded
17:55:36 <dom> q?
17:55:42 <fantasai> IJ: One of the things tied into earlier comments, want to make sure IPR commitments are in place
17:55:50 <fantasai> ... even if lower fee or zero feel or temporary zero fee or whatever
17:55:59 <fantasai> ... we would want an organization patent commitment even as a non-member
17:56:04 <dom> ack cwilso
17:56:04 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to talk about friction increase
17:56:05 <fantasai> ... I think very much in scope to make that clearer
17:56:19 <fantasai> cwilso: Wanted to riff on sudden friction in work of CG vs WG
17:56:29 <fantasai> ... in a lot of ways this is natural because lots of things we have in WGs that aren't required in CGs
17:56:34 <fantasai> ... don't have horizontal review requirements
17:56:47 <fantasai> ... don't have ability for other ppl to add stop energy, can't formally object to a CG's work
17:57:05 <fantasai> ... also CGs don't have to define their space very well
17:57:17 <fantasai> ... and can compete, addressing same space with their solutions
17:57:20 <fantasai> ... but WGs not so much
17:57:25 <fantasai> ... but the friction shouldn't be so sudden
17:57:36 <fantasai> ... shouldn't move something into WG that has a standing start
17:57:54 <fantasai> ... shifting things, increasing consensus and traction, put to AC vote to transition to WG
17:58:09 <fantasai> ... Have a tendency to go on too long before saying we have enough momentum for WG
17:58:13 <dom> ack dsinger
17:58:14 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to mention branding and identity
17:58:18 <fantasai> ... Need to transition even if work isn't *done*
17:58:33 <fantasai> dsinger: the amount of oversight is something to reconsider
17:58:43 <fantasai> ... especially where work is intended to move to WG
17:58:55 <fantasai> ... if something is inappropriate for W3C mission
17:59:09 <fantasai> dsinger: Publications of W3C are not distinguished visually very well
17:59:24 <fantasai> ... things appear to be W3C specifications, but they're a CG report
17:59:27 <fantasai> ... I know that's been on the radar a long time, but gently urge to take action
17:59:34 <fantasai> Dom: definitely part of this program
17:59:43 <fantasai> ... if CG report, needs to be clear
17:59:51 <fantasai> ... which specs have which commitments
17:59:55 <fantasai> ... adopt new branding
18:00:00 <fantasai> dsinger: they shouldn't even look similar
18:00:19 <fantasai> anusha: Very unrelated, but circle back to last slide calling out 3 implementations of storage access without WG
18:00:37 <fantasai> ... seems you have a lot of mitigations to avoid getting into this situation
18:00:45 <fantasai> ... but what do we do with such a case?
18:00:58 <fantasai> dom: Ideal outcome of this program is to avoid such situations
18:01:13 <fantasai> .. but part of it is working with existing CGs to address those
18:01:17 <fantasai> s/../.../
18:01:23 <fantasai> ... bring clarity to the environment
18:01:28 <fantasai> IJ: Wrapping up
18:01:36 <fantasai> ... lots of comments in line with what we're intending to do
18:01:51 <kirkwood> present+
18:01:55 <fantasai> ... one thing not on our radar was patent commitment timing
18:02:00 <fantasai> ... but transfer part is on our radar
18:02:09 <fantasai> ... thank you and please continue to make comments in the council.
18:02:11 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
18:02:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-cg-revamp-minutes.html fantasai
18:05:53 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
18:09:15 <mgarrish> mgarrish has left #cg-revamp
18:10:44 <wendyreid> wendyreid has left #cg-revamp
18:12:12 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #cg-revamp
18:16:45 <dsinger> dsinger has left #cg-revamp
19:07:38 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
19:35:09 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #cg-revamp
20:14:01 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
21:25:21 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
21:40:32 <dom> dom has left #cg-revamp
21:53:37 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
21:53:51 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
21:58:48 <naomi> naomi has joined #cg-revamp
22:32:08 <EgeKorka_> EgeKorka_ has joined #cg-revamp
22:54:07 <naomi> naomi has left #cg-revamp
22:55:19 <EgeKorkan> EgeKorkan has joined #cg-revamp
22:55:44 <EgeKorkan> EgeKorkan has joined #cg-revamp
22:58:09 <EgeKorkan> EgeKorkan has joined #cg-revamp
23:03:15 <EgeKorka_> EgeKorka_ has joined #cg-revamp
23:03:48 <EgeKorka_> EgeKorka_ has joined #cg-revamp
23:19:40 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #cg-revamp
23:57:01 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #cg-revamp