14:56:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:56:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/11-w3process-irc
14:56:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:21 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
15:00:20 <florian> present+
15:00:24 <TallTed> regrets, due to collision with DID WG Special Topic Call
15:00:24 <TallTed> regrets+
15:01:45 <fantasai> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Dec/0000.html
15:01:50 <fantasai> fantasai has changed the topic to: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2024Dec/0000.html
15:07:19 <fantasai> Topic: Administrative
15:07:41 <fantasai> Discussing what to do about quorum.
15:08:14 <fantasai> Maybe auto-close the issues if no comments after a period of time.
15:09:20 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Resolutions in this meeting are tentative, finalized if no objections by the end of December 20th
15:09:53 <fantasai> plh welcomes Ian Jacobs to the call
15:10:17 <fantasai> plh: Would be good to have a session about the Process with the Team
15:10:30 <fantasai> ... most feedback is "Process is too complicated and arcane"
15:10:33 <fantasai> ... but we can't fix everything
15:10:38 <fantasai> ... we need to keep iterating on Process
15:10:42 <fantasai> ... but we can get feedback on new things
15:11:27 <Ian> Ian has joined #w3process
15:11:27 <fantasai> Topic: Feedback on Charter Refinement Text
15:11:39 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/934
15:12:06 <fantasai> [discussing doing a presentation to the Team]
15:12:24 <fantasai> plh: Probably looking at January now. Can take an action item to schedule it.
15:12:41 <fantasai> ... we usually target Thursday at 9am Eastern for project reviews
15:13:59 <fantasai> florian: Ideally, by the next AB F2F, we can declare that Process CG is done, and launch first informal AC review
15:14:06 <fantasai> ... so if we want to do some explaining to the Team, we could do it after that
15:14:13 <fantasai> ... but if we want to raise issues, sooner is better
15:14:53 <fantasai> fantasai: last Process CG meeting before AB meeting is Jan 8th
15:15:25 <fantasai> ... better to get in before then
15:15:37 <fantasai> plh: could maybe do December 19th?
15:16:11 <fantasai> fantasai, florian, Ian: wfm
15:16:39 <fantasai> plh: Can focus on changes that affect the Team
15:17:11 <fantasai> ... what's new from perspective of Team Contact in the new Process
15:18:08 <fantasai> Subtopic: Ian's Feedback
15:18:26 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/934
15:18:42 <fantasai> Ian: Prepared a deck wrt chartering at TPAC, particularly issue of FOs
15:18:49 <fantasai> ... but I have no recollection of presenting this deck
15:19:01 <fantasai> ... I created a modified version for today
15:19:13 <Ian> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1snHd4J0S73cPMc4zRx-158JpncCULWRFp7mifDTlmdI/edit#slide=id.p
15:19:29 <fantasai> Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1snHd4J0S73cPMc4zRx-158JpncCULWRFp7mifDTlmdI/edit#slide=id.p
15:19:58 <fantasai> Ian: Some things driving conversation
15:20:07 <fantasai> ... very few times that Team doesn't propose a charter to AC
15:20:12 <fantasai> ... concern around growing number of Formal Objections
15:20:18 <fantasai> ... and increasing Member engagement around chartering
15:20:26 <fantasai> ... seems this was also your goal
15:20:27 <fantasai> florian: yes
15:20:37 <fantasai> Ian: We wrote down high-level goals to solving this
15:20:49 <fantasai> ... want to make sure work is interesting -- people are engaged if it's interesting
15:20:51 <fantasai> ... make it easy to do reviews
15:21:11 <fantasai> ... want not just AC review, but earlier review to improve quality, build community and support for the work
15:21:20 <fantasai> ... and improve consensus and understanding of the charter
15:21:31 <fantasai> ... maybe resolve some FOs, even if not all of them
15:21:39 <fantasai> ... critical to consortium health that Members be engaged
15:21:47 <fantasai> ... demonstrations of engagement help the staff allocate resources
15:21:56 <fantasai> Ian: for each of these, how would we do it?
15:22:10 <fantasai> ... identifying interesting work, we have CGs, listen to Membership, etc.
15:22:20 <fantasai> ... we have many mechanisms to hear what's interesting and what's not
15:22:56 <fantasai> ... Tactics for improving consensus, e.g. cultural values and shared principles (design principles, vision, etc.)
15:23:10 <fantasai> ... improving training and education around CGs
15:23:22 <fantasai> ... no hammer to get ppl to agree, need to do it in soft ways and help them feel part of community and share the values
15:23:27 <fantasai> ... but consensus is not always possile
15:23:42 <fantasai> ... we can do things to improve the odds, but sometimes can't get to consensus
15:23:53 <fantasai> ... so should capture the disagreements
15:24:08 <fantasai> ... charter reviews create opportunity fo rshared understanding
15:24:25 <fantasai> ... and charter reviews should produce proposals for improvements to increase consensus, and documentation of dissent
15:24:35 <fantasai> Ian: I don't want to increase opportunities for FOs
15:24:42 <fantasai> ... instead, want to create incentives to make a decision
15:24:46 <fantasai> ... we want engagement
15:25:05 <fantasai> ... hearing conversations about doing more community management on AC Forum; no need for process, just need to do a better job
15:25:19 <fantasai> ... easier to raise issues early, without calling them FOs
15:25:51 <florian> q+ to respond a couple of points (once Ian is done)
15:25:52 <fantasai> ... Let's keep finding ways to make things easier to do
15:26:20 <fantasai> ... Tooling improvements, centralizing management of charter reviews, etc.
15:26:36 <fantasai> ... Members need to be interested because interesting topics, but also not dissuaded from engagement because hard to do
15:26:43 <fantasai> Ian: Ideas for experimentation
15:26:48 <fantasai> ... There's an initial charter
15:26:59 <fantasai> ... different series of review steps (analogous to REC track)
15:27:08 <fantasai> ... gathering comments on their way to AC Review
15:27:08 <fantasai> ... this would include the staff
15:27:16 <fantasai> ... part of my comment in issue is, let's not add hooks for objections
15:27:34 <fantasai> ... let's say cultural expectation is that all charters go to AC Review, except rare cases where staff determined this is spam
15:27:45 <fantasai> ... we want the staff to have some fallback power to prevent undue noise
15:27:52 <fantasai> ... if ppl don't trust staff to do that, bigger problem
15:28:10 <fantasai> ... assuming staff does what it always does, and prepares to send to AC
15:28:21 <fantasai> ... if bad idea, we can have staff comments, horizontal review info, etc. AC can make the call
15:28:32 <fantasai> ... incentive for the staff to express itself, but AC decides
15:28:57 <fantasai> ... so I would like to suggest that we don't put a magnifying glass on the staff's tasks, but find incentives and use cultural means to get the desired outcome
15:29:04 <plh> q?
15:29:09 <plh> ack florian
15:29:09 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond a couple of points (once Ian is done)
15:29:18 <fantasai> florian: That's interesting, because I think we are close on many things; but some you have a different read on what we're proposing
15:29:32 <fantasai> ... your main point of difference is "don't create so many opportunities for FOs"
15:29:38 <fantasai> ... and I don't think we are, so let's talk about it
15:29:48 <fantasai> ... One that's new is ability to FO to Team refusing to propose something at all.
15:29:51 <fantasai> ... I don't expect this to be used.
15:29:56 <fantasai> ... I expect Team to be reasonable.
15:30:02 <fantasai> ... But it's signaling. This is something you have a right to ask.
15:30:12 <fantasai> ... Sometimes people believe "it'll be ignored anyway, so why bother asking"
15:30:25 <fantasai> ... or sometimes they see "Team proposes", and therefore wait, but nothing happens
15:30:30 <fantasai> ... makes it clear that you can ask
15:30:48 <fantasai> Ian: It should be socially appropriate to ask "what's the status of X"
15:30:58 <fantasai> ... usually have reasons why it's not happened yet
15:31:06 <fantasai> ... but hammer in process to FO, not sure it's useful signalling
15:31:19 <fantasai> ... Both of us agree this is likely unnecessary, unlikely to happen often
15:31:34 <fantasai> ... If we can just put our comments and put out the charter, the need for staff to stop spam is almost never
15:31:45 <fantasai> ... We both have a model where we don't think a thing will happen very often, but rely on
15:31:54 <fantasai> ... which approach do we take in leveraging those models?
15:32:02 <fantasai> ... I love asking, but don't like FOs
15:32:10 <plh> q+
15:32:10 <plh> ack fantasai
15:32:50 <florian> fantasai: the reason we put it in there is not because we expect it to be use
15:33:09 <florian> fantasai: you have to be rejected before you can object to the rejection
15:33:43 <florian> fantasai: this forces exposing the reason if there is a rejection
15:35:31 <florian> fantasai: there has been requests from the AC that there be backstops to Team decisions
15:36:13 <fantasai> ... if you want the charter to be submitted faster, FO, is not the option because it's slow; only if something is blocked is it reasonable to use
15:36:44 <fantasai> plh: [missed] I see within the AC a lot of frustration, not always justified, that I didn't get my way so I'm going to FO
15:37:01 <fantasai> ... e.g. object to a charter because an issue in the spec didn't get addressed as they wanted
15:37:04 <Ian> q+
15:37:07 <Ian> ack plh
15:37:14 <fantasai> ... nothing I can do to prevent that from happening, but it does add weight to the whole thing
15:37:32 <fantasai> ... interesting case between AB and Team, Exploration IG
15:37:53 <florian> q+
15:38:02 <fantasai> ... at some point will ask Team to send charter to AC, but there's no chairs
15:38:09 <fantasai> ... can you object to that?
15:38:45 <fantasai> ... even when Team comes up with middle-ground solution, ppl not trusting the Team
15:38:50 <fantasai> ... vs pragmatics of the Team not seen as constructive as it used to be
15:38:59 <plh> ack fantasai
15:38:59 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to plh
15:39:23 <Ian> fantasai: You can object to the team not sending a charter to the AC for review if you have requested and the team has refused you.
15:39:48 <Ian> fantasai: The other thing you can object to is, in the process of drafting the charter, you can object to some aspect of the charter. The charter still goes to the AC with the objection attached
15:39:51 <florian> fantasai: you can object to the Team not moving a charter only if they reject a request you made, so if you haven't asked, there's nothing to object to
15:40:34 <florian> fantasai: the second point is that while we're discussing a charter, you can file an FO, but it doesn't get processed right then, it gets queued for processing later, at the same time as the AC Review
15:40:57 <Ian> q?
15:41:03 <Ian> queue==florian,ian
15:41:14 <plh> ack florian
15:41:50 <fantasai> florian: Another nuance, you don't get to object to Team not sending to AC, but to not starting the chartering procedure
15:42:02 <fantasai> ... if we are starting that, no blockage
15:42:40 <fantasai> ... if Team said, no not going to work on it, then AC rep could complain about not being allowed to work on the charter
15:43:10 <fantasai> Ian: Why just create opportunities to converse. This opens the door to more FOs
15:43:30 <plh> q+
15:43:32 <fantasai> florian: 2 parts, other part is FOs against content of charter. It does not create opportunity for more Councils.
15:43:47 <fantasai> ... This says that if you raise an FO during charter drafting, then it doesn't get handled now
15:44:00 <fantasai> Ian: Yeah. It's just the Team micromanagement bit that's the source of my reaction
15:44:10 <fantasai> ... I think we can experiment before formally changing the Process
15:44:19 <fantasai> ... e.g. batching including Team comments
15:44:40 <fantasai> ... We should try something 3-4 times before embedding in the Process
15:44:47 <plh> ack ian
15:45:03 <fantasai> florian: We cannot experiment with saying that we don't have to process FOs right now. We have to process them; ignoring them is a Process violation.
15:45:23 <fantasai> Ian: adding an objection to Team not processing something is what I object to
15:46:16 <fantasai> [ some back and forth on what constitutes an FO ]
15:47:03 <fantasai> plh: Wrt FO against Team for not sending a charter to AC, is important
15:47:09 <fantasai> ... there's no way for someone to escalate that
15:47:15 <fantasai> ... that's something we should give permission to AC to escalate
15:47:26 <plh> ack plh
15:47:34 <fantasai> ... give a way to object to that kind of non-decision
15:47:34 <Ian> q+
15:48:25 <fantasai> Ian: Person wants us to put forth a charter, and Team doesn't want to, then require Team to put forth to the AC along with Team comments
15:48:30 <plh> ack ian
15:49:02 <fantasai> florian: That's not better. If a bad charter ends up in front of AC, it will not only end up with FO anyway, it will require involvement of the entire AC
15:49:18 <fantasai> ... that's not better
15:49:32 <fantasai> florian: There's the abuser case, but there's also the naive person case
15:50:07 <fantasai> ... by having right to refuse, when someone asks you can have a conversation explaining why you refuse, e.g. this or that needs fixing
15:50:08 <plh> q+
15:50:13 <fantasai> ... requirement to forward as soon as asked, is impractical
15:50:20 <fantasai> ... and no right to appeal a refusal is politically untenable
15:50:28 <fantasai> ... I think the Team is unlikely to refuse anything that's reasonable
15:50:39 <fantasai> ... and if Team isn't reasonable, then they deserve to get the FO
15:50:49 <fantasai> plh: I heard 2 different things
15:51:02 <fantasai> ... Ian says, we don't need to change Process, we need to change Team practices
15:51:18 <fantasai> ... say instead of refusing charter, just send to AC with commentary
15:51:39 <fantasai> ... Florian discusses problem of unconditionally forwarding the charter
15:51:44 <fantasai> Ian: It helps to enumerate use cases
15:52:06 <fantasai> ... question is whether we think it's infinitesimally likely to have FOs in this approach
15:52:07 <plh> q-
15:52:24 <fantasai> ... 1. Staff is empowered to not put forth charters that are obviously not ready or spammy, and no appeal is likely in that case
15:52:56 <fantasai> ... 2. Reasonable charter, in that case just send to AC, potentially with our own comments, for AC to make decision
15:53:05 <fantasai> ... No need to reject reasonable charters, so we won't
15:53:10 <fantasai> ... If we're all saying staff wouldn't do that...
15:53:18 <fantasai> florian: You know this, and I know this, but bulk of AC doesn't.
15:53:32 <fantasai> ... There's a good chunk of AC doesn't understand how chartering works, doesn't understand they can ask the Team for charters
15:53:45 <fantasai> ... adding a hook in the Process makes it clear that any AC rep has the right to request a charter
15:54:04 <fantasai> ... given how the Process is written, if we point that out and say that you can't object to it, that leads to object that you can FO if rejected
15:54:14 <fantasai> ... saying that this is uniquely unappealable will be weird
15:54:15 <Ian> q+
15:54:15 <plh> ack fantasai
15:55:37 <plh> ack ian
15:55:48 <fantasai> fantasai: Part of purpose of Process is documenting how the process works, so that ppl can understand how to do things
15:56:12 <fantasai> ... and wrt the FO that you're saying we don't need because Team is reasonable, AC wants to know that if Team becomes unreasonable, they have recourse
15:56:24 <fantasai> Ian: We don't need to document everything in Process
15:56:27 <fantasai> ... we have /Guide etc.
15:56:43 <plh> q+
15:56:57 <fantasai> ... I don't think we should add "how to" into the Process
15:57:17 <fantasai> plh: I don't think we're going to reach a conclusion today on this
15:57:28 <fantasai> florian: Thanks for sharing the perspective
15:57:51 <fantasai> Ian: Some concern about over-engineering staff processes
15:58:02 <fantasai> ... concerns that arise in this topic, and gut reaction to it
15:58:10 <fantasai> ... valid topic
15:58:21 <fantasai> florian: Wrt removing procedural things from Process, and in some cases I agree -- e.g. just did this for Member Submissions
15:58:35 <fantasai> ... but this one needs more because it's contentious
15:58:38 <fantasai> plh: Sometimes just Guidebook needs to be revised
15:58:44 <fantasai> ... maybe ProcessCG can be more involved in /Guide
15:58:49 <fantasai> ... but trying to figure out what's our next step from here
15:59:06 <fantasai> florian: I'll note that you two disagree on this FO opportunity, so not AB vs Team here
15:59:19 <fantasai> ... One thing we might attempt is to de-emphasize that part.
15:59:31 <fantasai> ... What's essential is that there are clear boundaries, and ensuring ppl know they have the right to ask
15:59:54 <fantasai> ... if it falls out implicitly that an FO is possible, maybe you'll like this more
16:00:20 <fantasai> [discussion on how to structure next week's presentation]
16:01:41 <fantasai> Ian: Just wanted to express my appreciation for working on the Process
16:02:29 <Ian> Ian has left #w3process
16:03:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:17:24 <fantasai> Topic: Meeting Closed
16:17:32 <fantasai> plh and fantasai review the Process draft
16:18:17 <fantasai> ACTION: plh file issue saying that Team can unilaterally forward a charter draft to the AC (so that it doesn't get stuck)
16:26:46 <fantasai> ACTION: florian or fantasai to draft a PR de-emphasizing the FO factor of denying charter advancement
16:26:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
18:07:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process