Meeting minutes
Framing
<amy> Avneesh's mail to ac-forum
alex: Thanks for attending
… this meeting is under our code of conduct
… the topic is meetings structure
… today let's focus on AC meetings
… if you didn't read the description of this session, let me remind you
… we're assessing meetings structure
<amy> W3C Global meetings structure - Focus on AC meetings breakout description
Alex: the process mandates two ac meetings per year
… we welcome your feedback
<amy> Session proposal on GH
Alex: aiming to improve AC meetings
<alex> Why are you attending the AC meeting? Or why don’t you attend?
<alex> What would you like to see in those meetings that would make you attend?
Alex: we have a set of questions, to help frame the discussion
… please q+ to respond
Alex: what improvements can we make to increase participation is another question
Discussion
fantasai: I attend because I have an interest in W3C's governance and process
… I've also attended some of the japanese member meetings
… a great way to keep people up-to-date on what's happening
… I'd love for us to engage more people
… I agree with cwilso to open up to more people so that they develop an interest
… those could be observers at AC portions
cwilso: The reason I attend AC meetings is an interest in participating in W3C's governance
… there was an attempt in the past to make the AC meeting a bit more like what the japanese member meetings are
… but that was weird
… as AC meetings aren't the same nature
… the people who participate in AC meetings are specific
… unless you have a strong narrative to the meeting, the hard part is "it's breakout day" or "another TPAC"
… it's not a bad idea
… it would probably be good to be clear about what parts are governance,
… clarify their narrative
… and then have more breakouts
… if you want to increase the number of people, it would need to be more open
<alex> 354 Members
cwilso: there's only one AC rep for member [and one alternate optional] and there are 350 members
angel: we've tried very hard to invite members to join and discuss but we didn't manage to invite as many as we wanted
… why won't Chinese companies attend? I came up with 3 topic that might attract them
… 1) they're supposed to advise us
… identify specific topic we want their advice on
… so that they can prepare
… annotate informative sessions on the agenda
… come up with a list of questions where we need input
<fantasai> +1 angel to using the meeting to collect input
angel: 2) in the northem hemisphere spring, this is when people figure out their yearly strategy
… perhaps we could make it so that they get back to their company some things that are useful
… at the technical level by discussing technical strategy and upcoming developments in technology
… 3) problem-solving and decision-making
… we have formal objections mechanisms
… we resolve them asynchronously
… Team reaches out, understands concerns, solves problems
… from my experience when I worked in Industry, I had to be there, present my proposals
… talk to people
… and it helped a lot to be f2f to solve problems
… councils asynchronous work could be sped up by being part of the AC meeting
… or make any decision
… if it helps
Alex: yes, this has been already discussed [decision making]
… the AC is more a reporting meeting
… within the Team we noticed we might have more attendees
… if we included decision making
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention the purpose of the AC meeting (as part of process and distinct from TPAC) + Angel's point on how AC participate
<amy> https://
<fantasai> angel++
amy: i wanted to touch upon the purpose of the AC meetings as outlined in the process
… which can be expanded
… this is exciting
… there are conversations for how to do so
… process requires AC meeting to update the AC about resources, allocation, etc.
… reporting is very important
… so that we can be held accountable
… but this doesn't have to be the main focus
… AC reps and AB and TAG, and Board and Chairs all have important roles to play
… +1 to Angel's examples
<fantasai> +1 to reporting being important, and also expanding beyond that
amy: I think it's worth focusing on what needs attention
Alex: the Team made an analysis
<alex> https://
Alex: we tried to identify the things that prevent people from attending
… e.g., budget constraints, travel restrictions
… any insights on aspects preventing people from attending AC meetings? (but don't prevent them from attending TPAC)
<amy> Alex's analysis document is really worth diving into
angel: maybe we don't need to restrict attendance to AC reps or Chairs only
… because we don't make decisions, we don't count votes
… if organizations want to learn about how this organization is doing, and care/ and want to listen, we should accept more reps from those members
AvneeshSingh: as Amy mentions, discussions in the group [AB?]
… what happens in Daisy Consortium:
… people come together to have discussions of business relationships
<amy> I see the point of expanding the meeting but inviting people who do not have the the role to vote. i know we want more participation but we have 100s of AC, if they all came that would be a lot of participation
AvneeshSingh: we poll our members regularly
… they say they need longer breaks
… so that they can meet more people, form more plans
<amy> +1 to Avneesh on opportunity to meet community, form plans to work together, making relationships, business benefits
AvneeshSingh: people get budget approval as they know there will be business benefits if they go there
<amy> looking at this from the Member-value point of view is important
cpn: @@
… I also agree with Avneesh
… I found it's a benefit of attending AC meetings
… TPAC is so oriented on technical work
… for me a separate space for governance is useful
… I make good connections with people in the industry through AC Meetings
… it would be interesting to hear from people about topics that they want to be bringing into W3C
… e.g., we're proposing the exploration IG
<amy> +1 to cpn it's interesting if we think of TPAC as the tech that is happening and the AC as the strategy for what we see coming
cpn: we heard last year's AC meeting mostly from the Team about the topics they've explored
… and see if there's wider interest
… that sparked good discussions at the time
<fantasai> +1 amy
cpn: recognising what cwilso said about breakouts: this is the way to do that
… so representatives themselves may be too narrow a group to have those technical work conversations
… I'd like to hear about that at AC meeting; what people want to bring to W3C
<fantasai> Ideas from the AB F2F session about redesigning the AC meetings
cpn: the only way to do that is to have a wider set of participants
cwilso: I wanted to respond
… what companies are involved in and what size they are
… the AC meeting isn't a strategic planning meeting for Google
… that's probably true for most large companies at least, if not all
[Sue Koomen arrives]
cwilso: if you get @@you'd get more people to pay more attention
… it's not the strategic planning for the company as a whole
… if you want to focus on health of W3C as a consortium, it's a different set of people and a small group of people
… it's not the strategy for the member company
… what the value is intended to be is the most important thing
… right now google sends to AC those that are the most relevant to "running Google's engagement with W3C"
… me, jeffrey yasskin
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to respond re: strategy
cwilso: if there are other areas, it would be other people
amy: if the AC is for reporting, it would @@
… it could be reports on where things are heading, planning, allocations
… Chris's point about the value of meetings is a good one
… connections, discovering members, talking about impact
… all of these are important
… I was trying to reframe it from this body is supposed to deal with this or that, apologies if I used "strategy" incorrectly
AvneeshSingh: governance from AB and BoD, maybe a little different
… if we provide an opportunity to discuss resource allocations
… the management team can refer back to advice
… and the AC will be felt heard
<amy> +1 to provide opportunity to AC say where resources go, eg: sustainability. not to define but that input is valued
AvneeshSingh: and as contributors to the future of W3C
… this is another way to engage the AC
… in governance, which is different from that of the AB and Board
<cwilso> +1
AvneeshSingh: if you end up thinking AC meetings are not too popular, should we talk about having two TPACs a year? I think it would be a mistake. It's important to make the AC feel engaged and valued
<amy> +1 to AC being primary contact in org and the need to make them feel valued
alex: let's hear fantasai and then talk about two tpacs a year
fantasai: I don't think the goal is to develop the strategy of the conmpanies participating
… but of W3C itself and of the companies' participation in W3C
… there's a much more limited scope of strategy
… we're going to have topics of governance, resource allocations
… input, not just reporting
… but also, to bring awareness about what W3C is doing, considering doing
… and inviting people to participate
… we need several aspects to the AC meeting
… in terms of bringing in more people
… I got involved into governance by being invited by Ralph as an observer at an AC meeting from my participation in the Process Document
… openness to participation is one of the great strengths of W3C
… what can we do to support the kind of planning we want
alex: the AC rep may not be the right person to cover both governance and technical topics
… we thought opening the meetings more widely might help us
fantasai: Avneesh I think said it's important to have a meeting where AC reps feel valued
… so not just two tpacs
… what I think about two TPACs:
… groups (and therefore participants) might not be able to attend two
… we will lose some of the benefits we have today
… try to develop a different purpose for the AC meeting
… figure out how to make it more concrete
cwilso: I do agree 2 TPACs a year, replicated the same way, would diminish the value of both of them overall
… but this breakout day is a good idea
… I'd encourage making a hybrid event instead of purely remote
… so you have the possibility of "people there"
… as Elika mentioned
… I do think the value of breakouts in particular has been tremendous
… cross-pollination you can do with breakouts too
cpn: I like where cwilso is going with that
… hybrid + strong governance angle
… to preserve AC meeting and extend with tech strategy and breakouts
… breakouts could attract new people
… to attend in person
… I also very strongly agree not to try to replicate the full TPAC experience twice a year
… for reasons given already
… +1 to cwilso's line of thought
Alex: Thank you
… any other comments?
fantasai: a question to take back is how can we support the membership
… engagement on the strategy and governance of W3C
… as well as support the development of their strategy for engaging with W3C
… help them understand what we're doing, what they might want to get involved in
… technically and organizationally
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask about "take back"
angel: one question:
… are we expecting a big change of meeting format for the next AC meeting?
… it would be good if people could get prepared.
Alex: I was going to mention it in the wrap up
====
Wrap-up
Alex: wrap-up:
… thanks very much
… we'll discuss more internally
… the goal is to make changes for next year
… this needs to be known within the next few months
… we need to be ready to experiment and adjust
… we'll have more information to share in the upcoming weeks
fantasai: two specific changes we should plan that will impact logistics:
… 1) opening up to observers outside of the AC reps
… 2) extend to at least 3 days
<amy> -1 to opening up to observers from outside membership (there needs to be member confidentiality and some member benefit)
fantasai: make the 3rd day a hybrid breakouts day, if we can't fill up a 3rd AC meeting day
… I agree with Amy's irc comment
… open to W3C members and IEs, anybody that already have member access
… not open to the public in general
cwilso: it is really important to define way ahead of time the value, so that people can plan to attend
<fantasai> Many people find it hard to travel for only a 2-day meeting, so extending to at least 3 days can help increase participation
Alex: yes
fantasai: I'm excited about this
… this will be great
aside: distinction between AC meeting and AB-led Member meetings
Sue_Koomen: I'm trying to figure out the purpose of the AC Meeting, the value, why I should attend
… are you talking about the monthly meeeting? or another
… I'm trying to attend the monthly one
… but it hasn't an agenda so it ends up being an advisory board meeting
… also, W3C is so broad
… it's challenging to be driving purposes
… key to evolve that
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to clarify AC meeting from monthly AB-led meetings
amy: [introduces self, offers to help Sue]
… AC Meetings are for AC reps, chairs, team, etc. it's hybrid, and for plans for the future and reporting
… ab-led member meetings are monthly and remote about any questions members may have
… the former is Team-driven, the latter is member-driven
… I'm happy to talk to you further
fantasai: the discussion today is about a once or twice a year in-person/hybrid meeting
… the next one is in two weeks in France
… today we discuss how to improve this meeting, change its format
… question: what would you like the AC meeting to be
… you can attend the AC meeting virtually too; not as fun but worth it
amy: we try to make it fun for remote participants
[scribe moves to next meeting]