15:19:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:19:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/27-w3process-irc
15:19:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:19:14 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
15:19:15 <fantasai> Scribenick: fantasai
15:19:22 <fantasai> Topic: Issues to Discuss
15:19:30 <github-bot> Subtopic: Inaccurate text about Membership Agreements
15:19:48 <fantasai> florian: Process talks about "the Membership Agreement", but there's no singular agreement
15:20:12 <fantasai> florian: Might confuse Members into thinking that their agreement is the linked one, which might not be the case for their organization
15:20:28 <fantasai> florian: Smallest change that would fix it, is just to change the link to go to the index of all Membership Agreements
15:20:34 <fantasai> florian: I suspect fixing the link is enough.
15:20:37 <fantasai> plh: sgtm
15:21:06 <fantasai> florian: could make it plural, but that's confusing
15:21:18 <plh> ack fan
15:21:31 <fantasai> fantasai: could change "the" to "their"
15:21:35 <fantasai> florian: I like that
15:21:43 <TallTed> +1 "their"
15:21:59 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Change "the" to "their" and fix the link to go to the index
15:22:12 <fantasai> plh: objections?
15:22:20 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Change "the" to "their" and fix the link to go to the index
15:22:43 <github-bot> Subtopic: Typical group duration is not six months to two years
15:23:13 <fantasai> plh: minimum time to go to REC is 6.5 months, and the record is 9 months
15:23:40 <fantasai> florian: We could discuss whether 2 years is good, but the proposed phrasing seems good
15:23:53 <fantasai> plh: We don't close WGs as such anymore, we charge them with maintenance
15:23:59 <fantasai> plh: so we would charter for 2 years
15:24:33 <fantasai> fantasai: do we want all of that parenthetical in the Process?
15:25:01 <fantasai> fantasai: we could just leave it out and keep it shorter
15:25:28 <fantasai> plh: We have a restriction in the Guidebook to recharter every 2 years, because AC wants to check
15:25:42 <fantasai> florian: Guidebook is self-imposed by Team
15:26:01 <fantasai> plh: We've gotten objections to more than 2 years.
15:26:18 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Accept proposed wording but drop the parenthetical.
15:26:38 <TallTed> +1
15:26:53 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept proposed wording but drop the parenthetical (leaving guidance to /Guide)
15:27:36 <github-bot> Subtopic: Member associations
15:27:49 <fantasai> florian: Original Bylaws largely copied the Member Association definition from the Process
15:28:11 <fantasai> ... then when they reviewed, they found issues and decided to fix it
15:28:21 <fantasai> ... new definition in Bylaws is close to opposite of the old definition
15:28:33 <fantasai> ... Member Association is always a group of companies.
15:28:48 <fantasai> ... but old definition said it was created for a goal *other* than participation in W3C
15:29:10 <fantasai> ... and excluding a group that was created for participation in W3C is the opposite
15:30:35 <fantasai> florian: We special-case them because they're a special member
15:30:46 <fantasai> ... a trade association that exists can become a W3C Member
15:31:04 <fantasai> ... a trade association that was created for the purpose of participating in W3C needs special handling
15:31:11 <fantasai> ... but the edit flips things around
15:32:27 <fantasai> fantasai: "Member Association means ... association of two or more individuals ... that as the purpose of participating in a common activity or pooling resources to achieve a common goal" ... that's basically any company ever.
15:33:07 <plh> q+
15:33:23 <fantasai> ... that seems overly broad
15:33:31 <fantasai> plh: Why do we need to define this?
15:34:27 <fantasai> florian: There are restrictions on who can represent a Member Association that are not true of ordinary Members
15:34:59 <fantasai> ... e.g. they may designate up to 4 non-employee reps
15:35:32 <fantasai> ... and their individuals must disclose their employment
15:36:05 <fantasai> ... maybe these restrictions aren't useful, in that case we can delete, but there are consequences of this definition
15:36:15 <fantasai> florian: but also, fantasai has a point, the definition in the Bylaws is too vague now
15:36:40 <fantasai> plh: Does this belong in the Process?
15:36:55 <fantasai> fantasai: It's imposing Process restrictions, so yes, it needs to be here
15:37:26 <fantasai> florian: It's not cross-referenced anywhere, but the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs are restrictions and the 5th is a clarification
15:38:20 <fantasai> florian: We should file an issue against the Bylaws about their edits.
15:38:57 <fantasai> florian: As long as the notion exists in both Bylaws and Process, it should be aligned; and if something makes no sense we should raise that
15:39:02 <fantasai> ... we can't fix the Bylaws, but we can file issues.
15:39:39 <fantasai> ... Suggest people to review if anything else is wrong with the Bylaws definition
15:40:59 <fantasai> florian: Let's look at other differences. In one case Board decides, in toher CEO decides. Should align to the Bylaws
15:43:05 <fantasai> [discussion of what needs to align]
15:43:38 <fantasai> florian: These aren't meant to be different use cases. We wanted it to mean the same thing.
15:43:57 <fantasai> ... and then the Board decided the definition was broken, and they tried to fix it
15:44:09 <fantasai> plh: Talk with Mark
15:44:19 <fantasai> florian: I'll need to talk to mnot, he drove this change
15:44:24 <fantasai> s/Mark/Board/
15:44:47 <fantasai> ... I think the intent of that fix applies to the Process, too
15:45:11 <fantasai> ... if some Members create more legal entities to have more power, need to restrict that
15:45:24 <fantasai> ... don't hide behind a shell corporation
15:46:44 <fantasai> fantasai: This section is about trade associations or standards orgs or whatever, you can see from the restrictions it imposes it's not about creating shell corporations in order to have 5 AC reps.
15:47:48 <fantasai> fantasai: Bylaws definition is clearly broken, since one path through the definition means every corporation that isn't a joint-stock corporation.
15:48:49 <fantasai> ... actually, the Bylaws doesn't even have the joint-stock clarification, it means every corporation ever
15:49:25 <fantasai> [discussion of Patent Policy implications]
15:49:48 <plh> https://www.w3.org/policies/patent-policy/#sec-disclosure-requirements
15:50:06 <fantasai> florian: That paragraph could apply to other Members, e.g. Mozilla could appoint a volunteer employed by a different org; in that case committing Mozilla's patents, not their employer's
15:50:21 <fantasai> florian: I think this has no Patent Policy impact
15:51:18 <fantasai> plh: Please don't create loopholes in our Patent Policy and Process
15:51:29 <plh> s/plh: Please don't create loopholes in our Patent Policy and Process//
15:51:37 <fantasai> ACTION: Process CG to review this section and figure out what it's trying to do, and is it doing it well.
15:52:22 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai to file issue about the broken definition in the Bylaws
15:53:05 <fantasai> s/broken//
15:55:46 <github-bot> Subtopic: Good standing
15:56:03 <fantasai> florian: Bylaws introduces a specific notion of "good standing" which is about whether you've paid your dues.
15:56:27 <fantasai> ... can be kicked out for not paying, or being a bad actor, but if not kicked out yet you can no longer vote for Board or for Bylaws changes
15:56:42 <fantasai> ... if you're in this bucket, should you also be barred from AB and TAG elections?
15:56:45 <fantasai> ... we don't have to, but we could
15:56:52 <fantasai> plh: Is it a problem that we have and need to fix?
15:57:04 <fantasai> florian: I think it's a confusing situation, to be able to vote in some elections and not others
15:57:15 <fantasai> plh: We have a lot of problems in the Process, is this necessary to fix?
15:57:25 <fantasai> florian: It's not broken, just a potential new feature
15:57:37 <fantasai> plh: Asking about opinion? I don't have one
15:57:48 <fantasai> ... leave it up to AB
15:58:56 <fantasai> Topic: Administrative
16:00:33 <fantasai> plh: Cancelling Christmas meeting.
16:00:37 <fantasai> plh: next meeting is December 11th
16:00:45 <fantasai> florian: We should be wrapping up soon
16:01:09 <fantasai> plh: I'm going to ask the Team. But haven't gotten much feedback on the Chartering bit yet
16:01:22 <fantasai> fantasai: We do have Jan 8th before the AB F2F
16:02:07 <fantasai> florian: we should do a work session to make sure we get through everything
16:02:33 <fantasai> plh: Also decide what we need to fix now vs later
16:04:06 <fantasai> plh: We need to allow the Process to be imperfect, otherwise we will have an unmanageable Process
16:05:02 <fantasai> ... we have checks and balances already for many things
16:59:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been (no one)
16:59:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
16:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/27-w3process-minutes.html Zakim
16:59:27 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, fantasai; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:59:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
16:59:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/27-w3process-minutes.html fantasai