Meeting minutes
Pull requests
<plh>
florian: We are fine-tuning the text. Some notes in the discussion.
… I plan to close this unless someone speaks up
… I invite people to express agreement or disagreement
PLH: The proposal is ok by me.
Nigel: I agree
(That was about https://
(Florian resolves another proposed change from TallTed)
(Fantasai joins the meeting)
(Discussion of https://
(Florian argues that the proposed link would create confusion due to references to different types of groups)
Fantasai: Seems fine
… to not include the link
Proposed: Merge the pull request
(No objections)
Florian: I will merge it following the call
<plh>
Florian: My proposal is to reject the pull request
PLH: +1 to closing with no action
Fantasai: +1 to closing with no action
Charter refinement
Ian: I am doing some work on this and socializing with team
Ian: I've been looking more deeply into this topic
… and I've been working on a draft with the Team
… of an alternative
… with the same goals, but slightly different approach
… as well as a corresponding guidebook update
… I'm making progress, will come back with that
fantasai: Seems mysterious
Ian: You've heard some concerns about this text from the staff, so trying to think through a way to achieve the original goals with a different expression of it
… want to get Team buy-in first
… before bringing the text to the group
florian: The AB is not attempting to say rubber-stamp and say done or reject and say no way
… overall AB supports refinements continuing and trying to get to wrap this up with the understanding that ongoing discussions with Team
… To my understanding, there were concerns expressed by some members of Team, but no consensus
… and on one of the points there were opposing views, specifically
… if the Team rejects to start a charter
… AB addressed this question, and resolved that yes, this is a Team decision (and can be objected to)
… Other than this point, AB did not resolve on anything, just supported continuing to refine this section
… Discussed starting wide review (including by Team)
… and also experimentation -- but that should involve actual experiments, not just waiting to see what happens
… For my part, I would like to continue on refinements, start on Guide article
… and discuss further with Team
… Want to see what Ian comes up with, and see if we will merge them or otherwise align
Ian: I'm fine to work on the Guide article, already started
… so maybe hold off
florian: If the problem of the Process is that it's not well-understood, then writing the explainer is necessary
plh: When Ian made his proposal to me, I told him the CG won't understand if we don't have a guidebook page
… also wrt starting the charter refinement process, I told him that it's important for it to be a Team Decision
… I need to go over this with Ian, his proposal still needs refinements
Ian: Florian, I don't think you need a Guide rewrite because there might be some convergence that happens
florian: We should meet with the Team again, and at that time we should have a Guide that goes with what we have
Ian: We should have these documents when we go through this with the Team
plh: BTW, we updated the framework used by the Guidebook, so should be easier to edit the guidebook than previusly!
florian: There was some strong opposition within the Team to stating that it's a Team decision to reject the charter. AB doubled down on this point.
… but we have a number of incoming comments
… I suspect that by processing these comments we will get to a good place
… Until Ian has something to present, I think we should continue refining the existing proposal
plh: Yes, we should continue on the assumption that we'll move forward on this
florian: Wrt P2025 as a whole, I think we're getting close, but with a few more issues resolved and edited, we should ask the AB to start wide review
… get broader input from Team, PSIG, AC, chairs, etc.
… I'm not aware of any pressing issues that we need to address in this cycle
[discussing scheduling the presentation of Ian's proposal]
plh: You're suggesting to start wide review at next CG meeting?
florian: Yes, should ask the AB to do it
plh: That would bring us to mid-February
… so wide review in March. We could talk about Process at AC meeting
… in that case we should reach out to program committee (Which is still getting formed) to present at AC meeting
… do we think this is worth attention at AC meeting
florian: Timeline looks right, but I wonder if it would be in the middle of voting or not? Sounds a bit early but maybe not?
plh: My guess is it'll be right before AC Review. AC meeting is on April 7th
florian: We also have an AB meeting that week, so maybe AB can decide to kick off AC Review at that meeting
plh: Can take into account feedback during AC meeting
ACTION: plh to reach out to program committee wrt presenting Process changes
plh: How long do we need?
fantasai: 10 minutes? Pretty sure we can present in that amount of time.
… Need more if you want Q&A
plh: Should do Q&A
… I'll ask for 15min
florian: Even if we don't get it, it's a useful checkpoint
Issues to Discuss
Requiring Team to assent to abandoning charter review
florian: Issue from Apple. Currently the facilitator can decide to give up unilaterally.
… Perhaps they give up too early
… so the proposal is that both the chartering facilitator and the Team need to agree to give up
… if the Team thinks effort should continue, then effort shoudl continue
… potentially with a different facilitator
plh: Can't Team decide anyway?
<plh> "A group decision or Team Decision to initiate AC Review of the charter draft, subject to Team verification that the expectations of charter refinement are fulfilled.'
florian: If we have a charter draft, and the group doesn't want to take it to the AC, then Team can decide unilaterally
… but the facilitator can still decide to *give up* unilaterally
plh: Ah
florian: I agree with the feedback, unsure about wording
plh: The Team can pick a different facilitator if the facilitator gives up
florian: If they decide to give up trying personally, sure. But if they decide the effort overall should stop...
plh: OK
… though we could restart the effort in any case
florian: Yes, but more messy
florian: One way to say this is that both the facilitator and the Team need to decide to give up
… other option is that facilitator proposes and Team confirms
plh: I don't feel strongly
TallTed: Inclined towards Florian's structure: decision by facilitator and concurrance by the Team
… appealing the decision, I don't think the intent is to force the facilitator who is resigning to continue with it
… so that is not a decision that is subject to objection
florian: Not a question about they can resign. Question is if they decide to disband the group.
… Is it two decisions, or a proposal and a decision?
[confusion]
florian: The facilitator isn't just saying taht they can't do it personally, but that the task is not worth continuing, let's stop trying.
plh: Can already object to a decision to abandon the proposal
… what's important is that it's a decision and can appeal it
florian: Let's agree on the goal, and then I'll try to make a PR
RESOLUTION: Draft a PR for this issue
github: w3c/
Ambiguous proxy statement
florian: Coralie pointed out an ambiguous phrase [quotes]
github: w3c/
florian: One suggestion from fantasai is to just delete the sentence
[discussion about what this section is about]
fantasai: We have a separate paragraph about proxy votes, apparently, so should just delete this sentence
plh: Objections to removing sentence starting "As a courtesy"
RESOLUTION: Remove the sentence starting "As a courtesy".
Process IG
florian: fantasai made a draft describing how we would operate if chartered as an IG
… I think she got it mostly right
… There's been some discussion in the AB about having a single group for the Process, Code of Conduct, Vision, Patent Policy, etc.
… There was no consensus on that idea.
… To the extent that we do them separately -- and I think we should do them separately -- I think the draft is pretty good, just needs some minor tweaks
… I hope the AB will pursue something like this
plh: I provided some comments in GH
… I agree that we don't want to mix up all these topics. Keeping in separate groups is good.
… Having said that, we'd be creating these non-technical groups
… and our Process was written mainly for technical groups
… so bypassing some stuff in /Guide for non-technical groups
… e.g. not doing horizontal review
florian: Process calls for "wide review", which is not necessarily "horizontal".
… The set of ppl to review this for "wide review" doesn't need to include the HRGs.
plh: True. If we decide Process should be an IG, then PWE should be also
… unsure how the AB sees continuation of the Vision
… there's a cost to chartering IGs, need chairs, charter, etc.
… so a bit worried about that
… I do agree the charter is a good start
… and suggested an idea for mentioning guidebook
<florian> fantasai: if we do this for process, we should also do it for pwe
<plh> fantasai: if we do it for process, we should also do it for PWE
<plh> ... I don't think the cost will be high to do these groups
<florian> fantasai: I don't think the cost is going to be particularly high, we already have chairs and team participation
<florian> fantasai: so it's mostly about the chartering cost
<florian> florian: I think I agree with PLH's suggestion about /Guide in the charter
fantasai: wrt PSIG, I think we shouldn't touch that. They're their own special thing.
plh: AB still needs to continue this conversation. If we do the same the PWE, that's not a discussion to have here
fantasai: Yes.
plh: I expect AB to take next steps on this.
florian: Yes. I expect AB to figure out whether it wants one group or several
… at that point, then this CG can propose the charter
… but then go through chartering process and see where it lands
plh: Once you get serious about this, I would like to open a strategy issue so we can start tracking the progress on those charters
… so that AC is aware of that conversation
fantasai: Need a decision about whether one group or many
(agree with florian that should be several and not one)
plh: Don't believe Team will oppose starting charter refinement on this
fantasai: Part of my rationale for writing this down
… is that relationship of Process CG and AB is unusual one
… and formally chartering can help clarify and codify that
florian: There's confusion about how we make decisions here even in the AB
… the fact that we work under the direction of the AB
florian: Let's triage issues and meet again later
Meeting closed