14:06:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:06:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/12-w3process-irc
14:06:15 <cwilso> present+
14:08:04 <plh> anna: no concern from PSG on the change to proposed recommendation
14:08:49 <plh> florian: on charter refinement, definition of minor vs major changes during that phase
14:09:00 <plh> ... increase of scope could not be considered minor
14:09:12 <plh> ... I'll need to turn that into a pull request
14:10:21 <plh> anna: PSIG was supportive of giving more time to review, but on the definition of changes is ambiguous. example: new deliverable being added
14:10:58 <plh> ... psig will work on its comments and send them next week
14:14:24 <plh> [discussion on timeline]
14:14:48 <plh> Topic: pull requests
14:15:10 <fantasai> fantasai has changed the topic to: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Mar/0000.html
14:15:32 <plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/994
14:15:58 <fantasai> github: none
14:16:08 <fantasai> Subtopic: Number of weeks to object to Charter Refinement rejection
14:16:22 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/994
14:16:40 <Ian> q+
14:16:40 <plh> Florian: proposing to set to 8 weeks
14:17:05 <fantasai> scribe+
14:17:21 <fantasai> ... this is for when the Team rejects starting the phase
14:17:31 <plh> ack ian
14:17:34 <fantasai> ... and when deciding to abandon the work
14:18:14 <fantasai> ... making it a longer period isn't a problem because this is a case where we're doing nothing, so we can continue to collect responses while we're doing nothing
14:19:27 <fantasai> Ian: We can change the time, just like for AC Review. Process can allow us to set the time period.
14:20:09 <fantasai> ... Secondly, we're talking about Charter things, and AC review is only 4 weeks. It's a well-established number.
14:20:13 <fantasai> ... This is a review.
14:20:17 <fantasai> florian: It's not a review.
14:20:29 <fantasai> Ian: It's charter-related. Review the situation to decide whether to object.
14:20:38 <fantasai> ... This is not a more detailed or complicated review period than AC Review
14:20:42 <fantasai> plh: Ian, you're misguided.
14:20:49 <plh> ack fantasai
14:21:19 <plh> q+
14:21:40 <Ian> q+
14:22:18 <florian> q+
14:24:10 <fantasai> Discussion of whether 4 weeks is enough ... might be if there was an announcement to AC, but currently we're not requiring that
14:24:25 <fantasai> florian: It's not just that nothing happens during the 8 weeks. Nothing happens at the end of it, either.
14:24:50 <fantasai> ... the only point in bounding is to make sure it doesn't get silly, like the 5th person objects 2 years
14:25:30 <fantasai> plh: Ian, you're making parallel between AC Review and this. But you should be making a parallel between decision and potential appeal
14:25:40 <fantasai> ... when we announce a new WG, we don't have to do anything unless someone objects
14:25:45 <plh> ack plh
14:26:12 <fantasai> Ian: My assumption was that Team has to tell Members about refusing to do something
14:26:28 <fantasai> ... my concern is about formal process of announcing Team decision to say no
14:26:46 <fantasai> florian: Announcement is that you have stopped, it's over.
14:26:54 <fantasai> Ian: Decision, starts a clock.
14:27:24 <fantasai> ... Team remains responsible for monitoring, instead of closing the case.
14:27:39 <fantasai> ... but I can live with this
14:27:48 <fantasai> plh: Can we agree to merge?
14:27:52 <fantasai> Ian: I can live with 8
14:28:13 <plh> queue=
14:28:16 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt 8 weeks in PR 994
14:28:24 <fantasai> Subtopic: Require Team to reply with rationale for rejection
14:28:34 <Ian> +1 to 995
14:28:39 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/995
14:28:53 <fantasai> florian: We already allow Team to say no (for reasons) when AC asks to start Charter Refinement
14:28:58 <fantasai> ... we didn't say the Team has to explain why
14:29:08 <fantasai> ... This PR requires Team to give the rationale
14:29:21 <fantasai> ... We use the verb "reply", which implies that you respond in the same forum that was asked.
14:29:35 <Ian> q+
14:29:49 <plh> ack ian
14:30:12 <fantasai> ... The reason for not needing to broadcast, if someone requests privately, and Team's response is "I'm sorry, your charter is quite terrible, can you try again", then the Team doesn't need to publicly embarrass them.
14:30:29 <fantasai> ... they can make the response public if they want, but not required to
14:31:16 <fantasai> Ian: ...
14:31:31 <fantasai> Ian: If Team formally says no, it goes to Membership for their fuller consideration
14:31:53 <fantasai> florian: If an AC rep formally requests, in private, as an AC rep... you are requiring yourself to tell everyone in public that their charter sucks?
14:32:11 <fantasai> Ian: For me, "formal request" means "I'm asking you to do this, and you are obligated to do this"
14:32:23 <fantasai> ... only reason to have in Process document, otherwise it's just people talking
14:33:14 <fantasai> ... formal request means the answer has to be public
14:33:27 <fantasai> florian: Putting it in the Process is requiring an answer. It doesn't require it to be public.
14:33:42 <fantasai> plh: If we tell the AC that you can ask any Team member, and it puts into a formal process, that's not going to be good
14:33:55 <fantasai> ... if having a formal process, there must be a burden on the Team to follow a formal process
14:34:05 <fantasai> florian: There's 2 things here: formal vs informal, public vs private
14:34:16 <fantasai> ... It is currently possible for Members to make formal objections privately
14:34:55 <fantasai> plh: Yes, but in that case we anonymize the comment but publish it publicly
14:35:07 <fantasai> ... Here you can send a request privately to the Team, and there is no obligation.
14:35:31 <fantasai> florian: We're not saying that any question is such. They have to formally request.
14:35:32 <plh> ack fantasai
14:35:38 <Ian> q+
14:36:34 <plh> ack ian
14:37:03 <plh> fantasai: it is possible to file a formal objection by ask the team
14:37:45 <plh> ... this is not an issue about expecting people to ask privately
14:37:52 <plh> ... a CG can do such request
14:38:12 <plh> ... the reason we did not want to make a requirement to involve the entire Membership
14:38:50 <plh> ... it is since the proposal will need to be refined becuase it can move further
14:39:01 <plh> ... this will create noise that the AC can avoid
14:39:27 <plh> ... so I don't think we should require to be public
14:39:55 <plh> .... if it needs to be made more public, it's always possible by the AC
14:40:12 <plh> ian: I don't want to capture the full range of human interactions
14:40:36 <plh> .... the only case is the worst case scenario: someone strongly disagree with the Team
14:40:57 <plh> ... and want to escalate
14:41:11 <plh> ... the other cases don't need to be captured in the process document
14:44:25 <plh> ... there is agreement a Member can escalate
14:44:39 <plh> florian: but we don't force Members to escalate in order to get a rational
14:44:53 <plh> ... that would be shaming a Member
14:45:07 <plh> ian: that's not reality
14:46:22 <fantasai> florian: I don't see a reason for Team to reply no without rationale.
14:47:20 <fantasai> plh: ...
14:47:41 <fantasai> plh: I'm fine with the PR as-is, but I might play with them being informal.
14:47:59 <Ian> q+
14:48:25 <fantasai> florian: If someone says "I'm AC rep of Q, and want to request the Team start Charter Refinement" ...
14:48:26 <plh> ack ian
14:48:36 <fantasai> plh: Yes, would interpret that as a formal request
14:49:01 <fantasai> Ian: Gap that AC can register formal objection, which starts the next process
14:49:26 <fantasai> ... I asked the Team to do something, they said no privately, I want to formally object. Other people don't know to object until the first objection
14:49:42 <fantasai> florian: If you have replied publicly (not required), any 5 Members can say "I hate this"
14:50:30 <fantasai> ... if you reply privately, say no, then nobody else knows to object, but they can publicise and ask for help objecting
14:51:23 <fantasai> Ian: Only becomes an official decision unless it's archived decision, otherwise it didn't happen.
14:51:55 <fantasai> florian: Precedent: In the case of AC Appeal, an AC rep can write to Team asking to appeal. They don't have to CC anyone.
14:52:08 <fantasai> Ian: That request doesn't exist until Team records that they got a request.
14:53:18 <fantasai> Ian: Recap. There's a private formal negotiation, and ppl might be satisfied with that. Always good to provide rationale, whether in Process or not.
14:53:38 <fantasai> ... AC rep can ask for more, but they have to request that the Team initiate that process by announcing this decision to the Membership.
14:54:09 <fantasai> florian: ok, I want to think about that. But continue to think that anything we do here is not in contradiction with this PR.
14:54:15 <fantasai> Ian: Sounds good.
14:54:34 <fantasai> Ian: I can live with this extra bit of requiring rationale.
14:54:47 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt PR 995
14:55:01 <fantasai> ACTION: Florian to work on Ian's concerns
14:56:06 <fantasai> plh: How are we going to finish if we're taking this long on each one?
14:56:26 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying DoCs
14:56:27 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/996
14:57:19 <fantasai> florian: Clarifying that it needs to highlight areas of disagreement
14:57:36 <fantasai> ... We're adding this because Ian's proposal doesn't use "disposition of comments", but rather describes the necessary information.
14:58:09 <fantasai> ... So we made a PR to clarify to the same level
14:58:33 <Ian> q+
14:58:40 <fantasai> plh: We've had "disposition of comments" for centuries... actually I guess we don't have it in the Process.
14:59:30 <fantasai> florian: Fuzziness makes it hard to know what happened, but this requires clarifying. Using "highlight" in the figurative sense.
14:59:35 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 996
15:00:06 <fantasai> Ian: For things we're already doing, some cases it's in the Guide, works fine, leave it in Guide
15:00:27 <fantasai> ... for some others, I see the point of a minimal obligation, even though ppl do it today, communicate clearly about it
15:00:37 <fantasai> ... in some cases will agree and others won't
15:00:52 <fantasai> Topic: Next Steps
15:01:16 <fantasai> plh: Next meeting in 2 weeks. I really encourage people to put comments in GH so we can move faster.
15:01:41 <fantasai> ... otherwise we'll need to meet weekly instead of biweekly
15:02:15 <fantasai> plh: Thanks everyone, that was painful, but we did make some progress.
15:02:23 <fantasai> Ian: thanks for working to converge
15:59:59 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
17:28:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process