14:58:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:58:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-w3process-irc
14:58:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
15:02:58 <TallTed> meeting: W3C Process CG Call
15:03:01 <TallTed> present+
15:04:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
15:04:14 <Ian> Ian has joined #w3process
15:04:57 <scribeAssistant> scribe+
15:05:21 <scribeAssistant> plh: Ian put together an alternative proposal. Florian, Elika, Ian, and I had a chat about it.
15:05:39 <scribeAssistant> ... Florian opened several pull requests against the Process to bring the CG draft closer to Ian's proposal.
15:06:44 <scribeAssistant> ... some questions about what we want to do by when
15:06:52 <scribeAssistant> ... AC meeting coming up in April, AB meeting right after
15:07:06 <Ian> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlIuhhYknEirNVBmTR5BCZGIH3qetwO3qIQfd62UXHg/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qfkvt686yope -> Ian proposal
15:07:19 <plh> Topic: Update W3C mission
15:08:06 <scribeAssistant> github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/220
15:08:18 <cwilso> present+
15:08:19 <plh> plh: that's at the top of the document.
15:08:43 <scribeAssistant> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/989
15:08:52 <plh> present+
15:12:12 <plh> Resolved: Merge #990 and editors are welcome to future changes based on the W3C website mission statement
15:13:27 <plh> Topic: Ian's proposal on charter refinement
15:13:52 <plh> Ian: developed after concerns raised by the Team
15:14:18 <plh> ... tried to understand the goals of the CG had been and try to achieve them with a different approach
15:14:39 <plh> ... addressing ambiguity on whether the Team can or cannot start charter refinement.
15:14:56 <plh> ... my approach is more square
15:15:05 <plh> ... so it's more straightforward
15:15:28 <plh> ... it resolves some of the concerns from the Team
15:16:06 <plh> ... the real question was how to object to the team when it decided not to do things
15:16:20 <plh> ... proposal is more lightweight to handle those cases
15:16:38 <plh> ... 5 Members is an easier threshold
15:16:52 <plh> ... in the case of AC review, the bar is higher
15:17:13 <plh> ... other aspects of the intention: drive consensus
15:17:18 <plh> ... drive Member engagement
15:17:37 <plh> ... solicit viewpoints
15:18:04 <plh> ... it's now stated clearly that the Team must seek consensus and must formally address comments
15:18:26 <plh> ... it's a stronger requirement but I'm happy to make this as a middle ground
15:18:46 <plh> ... in any case, we need to put more things in the Guidebook
15:18:56 <plh> ... so the proposal comes along with a Guidebook update
15:19:07 <plh> ... that will create efficient and stability
15:19:52 <florian> q+
15:20:18 <scribeAssistant> plh: There's a difference in emphasis between the two proposals.
15:20:34 <scribeAssistant> ... in CG proposal, emphasis is on the community effort on the chartering process
15:20:42 <scribeAssistant> ... in Ian's proposal, emphasis is on the Team
15:20:52 <scribeAssistant> ... There was a lot of pushback from Team about losing that emphasis.
15:21:03 <scribeAssistant> plh: The other major question was about how decisions get made
15:21:14 <scribeAssistant> ... for group decisions, need to know the group, and the current definition is quite vague
15:21:18 <scribeAssistant> ... so this was seen as a problem.
15:21:29 <plh> ack florian
15:21:30 <scribeAssistant> plh: These are the two main differences between the proposals.
15:22:42 <scribeAssistant> florian: One more editorial difference: the CG draft is chronologically ordered, whereas Ian's draft describes the core of the phase first and then how you start it.
15:23:04 <scribeAssistant> florian: Wrt how much time do we have to resolve this, I would like to add another time constraint which is more important.
15:23:14 <scribeAssistant> ... I would like the AC Review of this to start before the next AB election.
15:23:33 <scribeAssistant> ... Because it would be problematic if we need to re-start this discussion with a new AB.
15:23:41 <Ian> (Start of next election is 1 May)
15:23:46 <scribeAssistant> ... So want to finish this round of Process changes before the end of the term.
15:24:04 <scribeAssistant> ... In other words, before end of June.
15:24:26 <scribeAssistant> ... In terms of how we get there, I think this group will not be able to decide between two approaches, and kick some decisions up to AB.
15:24:36 <plh> [6 seats terms are ending on 30 June 2025)
15:24:49 <scribeAssistant> ... We could share it as-is right now, but there's a lot of differences that are incidental.
15:25:04 <scribeAssistant> ... Other thing we could do is look at all the things we can bring in line with Ian's proposal.
15:25:15 <scribeAssistant> ... Meanwhile apply a Process editor's eye to Ian's proposal and see what to adjust there.
15:25:34 <scribeAssistant> ... In other words bring the two together, and then comparing them will be easier.
15:26:02 <scribeAssistant> ... I put together 3 small proposals to start aligning CG draft with some aspects of Ian's proposal.
15:26:23 <cwilso> q+
15:26:38 <plh> ack scribeAssistant
15:27:03 <plh> scribe: taking this as-is to the AB isn't going to be useful for the AB
15:27:12 <plh> ... we need to outline the concrete differences
15:27:24 <plh> ... and bring concrete questions to the AB
15:27:58 <florian> q+
15:27:59 <plh> ... we could work on the alignment within the CG
15:28:12 <plh> ack cwilso
15:28:21 <scribeAssistant> s/scribe/anon
15:28:45 <scribeAssistant> cwilso: Completely agree. We should align as much as possible, and whatever we take to AB, we need to distill down into "what's the big picture question here"
15:29:09 <scribeAssistant> ... Even I'm having trouble here, and I'm relatively conversant with the Process.
15:29:34 <scribeAssistant> s/Process/Process compared to most of the AB.
15:30:00 <plh> ack florian
15:30:09 <scribeAssistant> TallTed: I echo cwilso and fantasai. When asking anyone to decide between X & Y, it's better to reduce unnecessary differences so it's clear what we're deciding between.
15:30:21 <scribeAssistant> florian: In addition to substantive questions, there's matter of framing.
15:30:43 <scribeAssistant> ... I think we can work at reducing the difference, but not to zero. Some differences are intentional. But maybe easier to talk about once we have reduced it.
15:31:00 <scribeAssistant> plh: Sounds like we're all on board with reducing the differences.
15:31:06 <scribeAssistant> ... Is it worth our time to go through the PRs from Florian?
15:31:17 <scribeAssistant> florian: Maybe? There are 2 different kinds of PRs. One is purely editorial.
15:31:45 <scribeAssistant> ... #993 is re-using phrasing from Ian's draft that could be easily re-used.
15:32:03 <scribeAssistant> ... The other two are not editorial, they are relating to a different, more efficient way of Members being unhappy with Team's decisions.
15:32:15 <scribeAssistant> ... When Team says "no" to starting Charter Refinement, or starting AC Review.
15:32:44 <plh> ack scribeAssistant
15:32:47 <Ian> q+
15:33:01 <plh> ack ian
15:33:23 <scribeAssistant> anon: I think we should merge the editorial one, and discuss the two substantive ones and send with recommendation to the AB.
15:34:28 <scribeAssistant> Subtopic: Editorial Improvements to Charter Refinement
15:34:56 <scribeAssistant> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/993
15:35:44 <scribeAssistant> Ian: Had a chance to review, no objection in principle, haven't re-reviewed the whole thing.
15:36:15 <scribeAssistant> TallTed: Reviewed yesterday, no objections.
15:36:22 <scribeAssistant> RESOLVED: Merging #993.
15:36:38 <scribeAssistant> Subtopic: Appeal vote as escalation for rejecting charter refinement
15:36:43 <scribeAssistant> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/991
15:37:00 <scribeAssistant> florian: Case of AC Rep has asked for Charter Refinement, and Team said "no".
15:37:11 <scribeAssistant> ... And there's a formal objection.
15:37:19 <scribeAssistant> ... This kicks off Council process, which is expensive.
15:37:38 <scribeAssistant> ... Ian's proposal is that if 5 people formally object, then we kick off Charter Refinement
15:37:49 <scribeAssistant> ... We didn't want only 1 person to be able to derail the Team.
15:38:01 <scribeAssistant> ... But if enough people do insist, we start Charter Refinement, and don't need a Council.
15:38:10 <scribeAssistant> ... In Ian's text, it was 3 weeks for reaching 5 members or more.
15:38:22 <scribeAssistant> ... I left as an open question. Doesn't seem urgent whether 3 or 7 or 12 weeks.
15:38:26 <scribeAssistant> ... But would be a problem if 7 years later.
15:38:39 <scribeAssistant> ... So as long as countable in weeks, not a rush. But wouldn't want it to be years.
15:38:43 <scribeAssistant> ... But that's the idea of this PR.
15:39:07 <scribeAssistant> plh: [proposes an example to think about]
15:40:27 <scribeAssistant> Ian: Mistake in the explanation: need 5 FOs, but then that kicks off an AC Appeal.
15:40:36 <scribeAssistant> florian: Right! That's correct.
15:40:40 <scribeAssistant> florian: Sorry for the confusion.
15:41:15 <scribeAssistant> Ian: Question is who do we appeal to when there's opposition to the Team Decision.
15:41:35 <scribeAssistant> ... In some cases we go to Council, but in this case it's faster to go directly to Membership.
15:42:39 <scribeAssistant> plh: Then we need 5% ...
15:42:48 <scribeAssistant> anon: No, we just skip straight to the AC vote.
15:43:04 <scribeAssistant> florian: There's a term that wasn't DFNed, so we DFNed it and skip right to the vote.
15:43:09 <scribeAssistant> Ian: I much prefer this to my proposal.
15:43:38 <scribeAssistant> plh: Are we happy with this PR? If yes, do we need to circulate with AB?
15:44:44 <TallTed> +1 ask for forgiveness, not permission
15:44:45 <scribeAssistant> plh: Proposal is to Merge 991, and then fantasai and cwilso can bring to AB for their consideration. Objections?
15:44:50 <scribeAssistant> RESOLVED: Merge #991
15:45:16 <scribeAssistant> Subtopic: Enable resuming charter refinement after decision to abandon
15:45:21 <scribeAssistant> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/992
15:45:41 <scribeAssistant> Ian: If Team decides after Charter Refinement not to start AC review, they need to announce, and if 5 members object we start AC Review.
15:46:15 <scribeAssistant> florian: I suspect that when we are in the case of Team giving up, it might not be "group has reached consensus about the AC Review and Team hates it", but rather "group is a mess, and Team believes there's no chance of getting to a charter to present to AC"
15:46:27 <scribeAssistant> ... In this case group might say "we think we can solve it with enough time"
15:46:42 <scribeAssistant> ... In this case you would want to resume Charter Refinement, not kick off AC Review.
15:47:06 <scribeAssistant> ... If in Charter Refinement phase, Team concludes it can't get any better, then can send to AC Review as-is.
15:47:33 <scribeAssistant> Ian: [missed]
15:47:47 <scribeAssistant> [Something about a 3-way decision]
15:48:00 <scribeAssistant> florian: Either give up or go to AC Review, but another option is Charter Refinement continues.
15:48:15 <scribeAssistant> florian: Proposal is if 5 ppl say "no you can't give up", then we resume Charter Refinement.
15:48:26 <scribeAssistant> ... at the option of Facilitator/Team we decide whether to keep working or push to AC Review.
15:48:45 <scribeAssistant> ... and if the Team thinks Charter Refinement is really a waste of time, they have option to kick it to the Council.
15:48:50 <plh> q?
15:49:07 <scribeAssistant> plh: Should we merge or take more time to review?
15:49:37 <scribeAssistant> florian: Weakness of proposal of, if Team is being obstructive, then Team can decide to continue and not work on it.
15:49:51 <scribeAssistant> Ian: In my case, Team announces a duration of Refinement. They'd have to announce a new duration.
15:50:47 <scribeAssistant> anon: Can object to the choice of Facilitator
15:50:55 <scribeAssistant> Ian: That's a staff decision, who is Facilitating.
15:51:03 <scribeAssistant> florian: That's a pre-existing aspect.
15:51:39 <scribeAssistant> plh: With that in mind, do we want to merge now?
15:51:45 <Ian> (Ok by me)
15:52:00 <scribeAssistant> florian: Hard to manage lots of open PRs, so if we're comfortable with things then we should merge.
15:52:07 <scribeAssistant> plh: Ian is ok to merge. Any objections?
15:52:16 <scribeAssistant> RESOLVED: Merge #992
15:52:34 <scribeAssistant> plh: Florian and Ian, can you keep working on PRs so we can keep aligning the two proposals further?
15:52:42 <scribeAssistant> florian: Some time challenge, but I will work on it.
15:53:04 <scribeAssistant> Ian: Thanks for the discussion and PRs, will follow up.
15:53:14 <scribeAssistant> [Ian departs]
15:53:35 <scribeAssistant> Topic: Timelines
15:53:47 <scribeAssistant> florian: My goal is to start AC Review by end of term.
15:53:55 <scribeAssistant> plh: We'll need to have wide review before that.
15:54:04 <scribeAssistant> plh: I would think that... 1 month is good?
15:54:23 <scribeAssistant> s/plh:/.../
15:54:38 <scribeAssistant> ... Some risk of if we get yet another proposal...
15:54:56 <scribeAssistant> florian: I think it would be ideal if we can decide to start review at April AB meeting
15:55:02 <scribeAssistant> ... but that might be tight.
15:55:09 <scribeAssistant> plh: We need to start review by mid-May
15:55:18 <scribeAssistant> plh: So we need a decision from AB before May 9h
15:55:22 <scribeAssistant> s/9h/9th/
15:55:34 <scribeAssistant> florian: Can you work with AB to make sure we have slot to discuss?
15:55:36 <scribeAssistant> cwilso: Sure
15:56:14 <scribeAssistant> florian: Also, I'll be in the area long enough that I could join an AB session on Process
15:56:18 <scribeAssistant> plh: I'll be available as well.
15:57:08 <scribeAssistant> plh: Let's make sure we have the questions to the AB ready for the AB to discuss in April so we can start the reviews on time.
15:57:40 <scribeAssistant> plh: I'm somewhat at-risk wrt next meeting, but decent chance I can make it.
15:58:01 <scribeAssistant> Meeting closed.
15:58:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-w3process-minutes.html scribeAssistant
18:07:09 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
18:14:00 <michaelchampion> michaelchampion has joined #w3process
18:19:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
19:05:32 <Brocker> Brocker has joined #w3process