15:04:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
15:04:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-w3process-irc
15:04:30 <fantasai> Topic: Prep
15:04:50 <fantasai> Round of introductions, since Jill Schmidt is joining us from Apple / PSIG
15:05:24 <fantasai> fantasai: Should talk about AC presentation, particularly the questions we want to pose to AC / AB
15:05:48 <fantasai> ... some of the substantive changes we're incorporating as we work to integrate Ian's ideas probably need higher-level discussion
15:06:04 <fantasai> plh: I will be making the presentation. Draft of slides ...
15:06:10 <fantasai> -> https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/AC/process-cg-update/
15:06:14 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests
15:06:46 <fantasai> Subtopic: Facilitator vs chair
15:06:48 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1002
15:07:05 <fantasai> florian: Current Process text re-uses concepts from standard group practies, e.g. moving to CR.
15:07:12 <fantasai> ... definition of consensus, role of chair, etc.
15:07:31 <fantasai> ... However unlike Groups, we don't here have a clear definition of who the participants are
15:07:40 <fantasai> ... So Ian finds the analogy imperfect
15:07:45 <cwilso> present+
15:08:01 <fantasai> ... of invoking group decision and chair concepts
15:08:47 <fantasai> florian: These changes are intended to keep the intention of reflecting consensus, without relying on those concepts
15:08:48 <plh> present+
15:09:28 <fantasai> ... using plural "decisions" to clarify that it is all the decisions leading up to the final decision to submit to AC that need consensus, not just the final decision
15:09:46 <fantasai> ... [missed somethinga about Team Decisions]
15:09:56 <fantasai> ... simplify by calling everything a Team Decision
15:10:19 <fantasai> ... related PR 997 which adds a nuance to how we make decisions
15:10:41 <fantasai> ... votes are weird, so instead of vote, that PR asks the Team to make a decision
15:10:54 <fantasai> ... We can't take both PRs -- that one is adjusting how group decision is defined
15:10:58 <fantasai> ... whereas this is removing that concept
15:11:54 <fantasai> ... Overall I think this is clearer, particularly the part about whether to go forward or abandon the work
15:12:04 <fantasai> ... Paths to appeal continue to exist
15:12:11 <fantasai> ... I think it's a reasonable change to take
15:12:25 <plh> ack fantasai
15:12:43 <plh> fantasai: suggested change needs to be incorporated
15:13:33 <fantasai> ... we need to be clear when consensus cannot be found, that an overriding authority is used to make the decision
15:13:48 <fantasai> florian: Ian supports that suggested change as well
15:14:17 <fantasai> plh: OK, proposing to merge #1002 with the suggested change. Objections?
15:14:30 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #1002 with the suggested change.
15:14:41 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close #997 (replaced by suggested change)
15:15:15 <fantasai> Subtopic: Reframe objection handling for charter refinement
15:15:24 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1005
15:15:43 <fantasai> florian: If FOs are raised during Charter Refinement, we made 2 exceptions
15:15:50 <fantasai> ... One is wrt abandoning the work
15:15:57 <fantasai> ... Another is when you want to object to the substance of the charter
15:16:14 <fantasai> ... We decided to batch process them alongside AC Review comments
15:16:31 <fantasai> ... But we did want to say, if someone objects to appointment of someone as the chair, that needs to be handled in real time
15:17:03 <fantasai> ... Not to create the ability to object to people, but acknowledging that this is possible, make sure processing is not delayed
15:17:07 <fantasai> plh: by chair you mean facilitator?
15:17:10 <fantasai> florian: yeah
15:17:26 <fantasai> florian: Ian doesn't object to this, but to how much we draw attention to the ability
15:17:48 <fantasai> florian: This change calls out the special cases, and then says "everything else is as normal"
15:17:54 <fantasai> s/florian:/...
15:18:01 <fantasai> ... This avoids drawing attention to it
15:18:32 <fantasai> ... So delayed FOs are a) substance of charter and b) objections to starting AC review
15:18:45 <fantasai> plh: Fine with change. Note that we have never had an FO to an individual.
15:19:03 <fantasai> florian: There were some objections to charters, which included chairing, but not solely chairing
15:19:09 <fantasai> plh: Fine with proposed change, any others?
15:19:40 <fantasai> fantasai: Looks good. I consider it editorial.
15:19:51 <fantasai> plh: Proposed to merge 1005 as-is. Objections?
15:19:59 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept #1005
15:20:21 <fantasai> Subtopic: Drop unnecessary remarks about optional communication
15:20:25 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/998
15:20:47 <fantasai> florian: Before we introduced Charter Refinement, Process already mentioned that the Team may send a notice when starting work on a charter.
15:20:55 <fantasai> ... this was called "Advance Notice"
15:21:08 <fantasai> ... New Charter Refinement process introduces a formal notice for starting refinement
15:21:23 <fantasai> ... This sentence was kept/added in order to try to remove confusion about these two notices
15:21:32 <fantasai> ... the official notice of starting charter refinement (Required)
15:21:41 <fantasai> ... and the advance notice of starting to draft a charter (optional)
15:21:50 <fantasai> ... The sentence was trying to draw attention that these are different.
15:21:59 <fantasai> ... But turns out readers are more confused by it actually.
15:22:08 <fantasai> ... And saying that Team may send emails is not really helpful.
15:22:16 <fantasai> ... Ian prefers to drop
15:22:28 <fantasai> plh: +1 to drop, simplify process
15:22:40 <fantasai> fantasai: defer to Team on this one, no opinion
15:22:48 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #998
15:23:20 <fantasai> Subtopic: Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the guide
15:23:41 <fantasai> florian: Before this PR, process says that if someone asks Team to start charter review
15:23:52 <fantasai> ... Team may deny if proposal is insufficiently mature, or doesn't align with W3C scope/mission
15:24:03 <fantasai> ... First version of the PR said, let's drop the why and put that in the guide
15:24:14 <fantasai> ... This is an iteration based on fantasai's discomfort with that
15:24:25 <fantasai> ... Having a hook to the guide is a good idea
15:24:36 <fantasai> ... but having nothing in the guide about what that might be, maybe not so good idea
15:25:09 <fantasai> ... So suggested tweak is to simply add "otherwise thinks the proposal doesn't meet the charter assessment criteria"
15:25:30 <fantasai> plh: I'm fine either way. Good to clarify scope and mission
15:26:07 <fantasai> ... link to those docs?
15:26:12 <fantasai> fantasai: we don't have a scope document
15:26:31 <fantasai> florian: NOt documented, but we have a scope. Defining composition of fertilizer is not in scope for W3C.
15:28:44 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm a little hesitant...
15:29:06 <fantasai> fantasai: also you're reverting most of your PR, so it's a little unclear
15:29:42 <fantasai> fantasai: also the grammar is broken
15:29:59 <fantasai> fantasai: let's close this an open a new PR that is better
15:30:49 <fantasai> florian: Another PR that's relevant is 1001, which proposes dropping explicit mention of wide review from the Process
15:31:05 <fantasai> florian: Ian thinks we don't need to mention it, it's already in Guide
15:31:29 <fantasai> florian: if we mention the Guide in the process, and everyone agrees it needs to be done, we don't need to write it down
15:31:43 <fantasai> florian: so it's an example of a thing that could be in the guide that isn't about refining
15:32:14 <fantasai> fantasai: This is about *starting* charter refinement. You can't use this link to Guide to say that wide review is required.
15:32:25 <fantasai> ... because we do wide review *during* charter refinement.
15:32:26 <plh> q?
15:32:29 <plh> ack fantasai
15:32:34 <fantasai> Subtopic: Dropping wide review from Charter REfinement
15:32:42 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1001
15:32:48 <fantasai> plh: I'm uncomfortable dropping this.
15:33:01 <fantasai> ... I agree we'll do it nevertheless, but it is a core value of our process.
15:33:08 <fantasai> ... people come to W3C because of wide review
15:33:14 <fantasai> ... I would keep it there to emphasize this value
15:33:22 <plh> ack fantasai
15:33:24 <florian> q+
15:33:38 <fantasai> fantasai: +1 to everything
15:33:48 <fantasai> ... if something is a core value, and we would be upset if we didn't do them, they belong in the Process
15:33:52 <fantasai> florian: I am also reluctant to remove this
15:34:38 <fantasai> florian: Extra motivation Ian mentioned was that, in an earlier iteration from this we insisted more that the facilitator is in charge, and at end of Process we have Team Verification. Under that framework, needed to mention wide review so that Team verifies it.
15:34:54 <fantasai> ... but the Team is in charge in general, so might not be necessary to verify what the Team does
15:35:05 <fantasai> florian: That said, personally, I'd rather keep it
15:35:12 <fantasai> plh: still think we should keep it
15:35:48 <fantasai> plh: Tantek is mentioning flexibility, and we have flexibility built into concept of wide review
15:35:58 <fantasai> ... but it would be bad to not have wide review
15:36:11 <florian> q?
15:36:14 <plh> ack fantasai
15:36:14 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to contest that logic
15:36:16 <cwilso> +1 plh
15:37:01 <fantasai> fantasai: Even if a Team member is facilitator, having Team verification is not redundant. Team checking other Team's work is still valuable, so this is not redundant.
15:37:07 <fantasai> florian: So proposed to reject this PR
15:37:10 <fantasai> plh: Yes.
15:37:15 <cwilso> +1
15:37:24 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Reject PR #1001
15:37:52 <fantasai> Subtopic: Drop summary of proposal from charter review notice
15:37:59 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/999
15:38:33 <fantasai> florian: Ian argues that we should drop this line of the process to make it shorter, and that it's already clear that an email without a summary would be a bad email
15:38:45 <fantasai> plh: I don't mind either way
15:40:09 <fantasai> fantasai: I would prefer to keep it. I don't think losing this line is that much of a savings, and an email without any indication of what it's about is not great
15:40:26 <fantasai> plh: Seems like a communication issue to document in /Guide
15:40:46 <fantasai> plh: Elika, do you object?
15:40:54 <fantasai> fantasai: I don't object, but I want to hear from an actual AC member
15:40:57 <fantasai> plh: cwilso? :)
15:41:09 <fantasai> cwilso: I would prefer to keep it.
15:41:16 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to close 999 with no action?
15:41:26 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Close #999 with no change.
15:41:55 <fantasai> s/Pull Requests/Pull Requests about Charter Refinement/
15:42:11 <fantasai> Topic: Edits for Removing AB/TAG Members
15:42:19 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/986
15:42:29 <fantasai> plh: Added because AB resolved on adopting this mechanism
15:42:46 <fantasai> florian: [summarizes proposal]
15:43:01 <fantasai> ... unclear if the AB adopted specific text, or open to tweaking
15:44:01 <cwilso> q+
15:44:17 <fantasai> fantasai: AB adopted the mechanism with 3/4 threshold. We can refine the wording, though.
15:44:30 <fantasai> florian: Note that Council membership is fixed, not affected by this.
15:44:43 <fantasai> ... would prefer to do that as a follow-up PR
15:45:07 <fantasai> florian: Other point is whether this new ability comes in addition or instead of the CEO's ability to remove people (which until now was only way to remove people)
15:45:46 <fantasai> cwilso: I stated that I was in favor of switching, and made clear that it was a replacement
15:45:57 <fantasai> ... I believe the minutes will agree that several others were on board with that as the plan
15:46:04 <fantasai> ... but it wasn't a major point of discussion
15:46:13 <fantasai> ... I'm not sure why we would be adding more ways to remove members?
15:46:35 <fantasai> ... If 3/4 of AB or TAG says "this member should be removed", pretty sure CEO would go along with that. So we would be saying we don't need CEO.
15:46:56 <fantasai> ... leaving to CEO to decide, "This person is disruptive, I don't like their feedback", that's concerning
15:47:16 <fantasai> plh: Was the CEO involved in the discussion?
15:47:25 <fantasai> cwilso: He was not attending. Some Team were there.
15:47:32 <fantasai> plh: Would want CEO to be aware of that change.
15:48:15 <fantasai> plh: Not ready to merge this PR today...
15:48:24 <plh> ack cwilso
15:48:27 <plh> ack fantasai
15:48:54 <cwilso> +1 that we could add this today, and I think we had support from the AB to do so.
15:49:12 <fantasai> fantasai: I didn't think it was clear in the discussion that we were removing the CEO mechanism
15:49:13 <cwilso> q+ to say I would like to address the other question in this version of hte process
15:49:23 <fantasai> ... but I think it was clear that we are adding this one, so I think we should merge this PR
15:49:36 <plh> ack cwilso
15:49:36 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say I would like to address the other question in this version of hte process
15:49:37 <fantasai> ... unless we feel that this PR is not a good representation of that mechanism
15:50:09 <fantasai> cwilso: I would like us to consider this at the same time. We should go back to AB and ask this question, not leave it open
15:50:23 <fantasai> florian: Do you mean you don't want to merge PR and wait several cycles of Process, or
15:50:27 <fantasai> cwilso: correct
15:50:35 <fantasai> florian: but no problem with merging, and quickly following up with AB?
15:50:38 <fantasai> cwilso: correct
15:51:00 <fantasai> ... We agreed on this change, let's merge it. But we should follow up on the CEO question.
15:51:16 <fantasai> plh: Proposed to merge PR as-is, and open issue of removing CEO ability and quickly cycle with AB on that front.
15:51:26 <fantasai> cwilso: I thought when we discussed in the AB that we were agreeing to replace this ability.
15:51:39 <fantasai> ... I think it's goofy to add rather than replaced, but certainly not opposed, since I think this is what we should be doing.
15:51:47 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to merging?
15:51:58 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR #986
15:52:32 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai follow up with AB about whether we meant to remove the CEO removal powers or not
15:52:36 <fantasai> Topic: AC Meeting
15:53:04 <fantasai> plh: Want to kick off Wide Review by mid-April
15:53:26 <fantasai> florian: I think Ian would prefer if we merged all the PRs, but wouldn't object to starting wide review with those we have merged
15:53:37 <plh> -> https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/AC/process-cg-update/ Slides
15:53:46 <fantasai> ... we probably want to review that we made all the necessary changes and it all still makes sense, but can kick off wide review
15:54:12 <fantasai> cwilso: I expect us to resolve the remaining blocking issues at the upcoming F2F (immediately after AC meeting)
15:54:39 <fantasai> plh: See draft of slides. Thanks very much for maintaining the Changes list, easy to highlight the important ones.
15:54:49 <fantasai> ... Even for changes, won't have time to go into details.
15:55:01 <fantasai> ... I listed items to cover as impacting REC track, or chartering, etc.
15:55:21 <fantasai> ... Implication for AC is good standing, and threshold adjustments
15:55:28 <fantasai> ... and clarifications wrt Councils
15:55:39 <fantasai> ... Those were big items I found
15:55:50 <fantasai> ... Any questions we should ask AC during the session?
15:55:50 <florian> q+
15:55:56 <florian> https://florian.rivoal.net/talks/process-2025-team/
15:56:00 <plh> ack florian
15:56:14 <fantasai> florian: In case it helps, here are the slides from my presentation to the Team. Feel free to steal content.
15:56:39 <fantasai> florian: Wrt questions, not sure what to ask.
15:57:00 <fantasai> ... All the things we discussed are subtle, and idk if we can fit into 10-minute presentation
15:57:06 <plh> ack fantasai
15:57:33 <plh> fantasai: no specific questions. Tess wanted clarity on appeal mechanism
15:57:49 <plh> ... be more specific on key decisions, managing dissent
15:58:31 <plh> ... highlight also specific changes that are affecting the AC
15:58:46 <fantasai> florian: so not debating proposal X vs Y, but describing the mechanisms and asking if they're ok
15:58:57 <plh> florian: AB should consider inviting Ian to its meeting
15:59:47 <fantasai> florian: Signal to this group, I think we should do our final review
16:00:38 <fantasai> fantasai: Btw, PSIG has some concerns about major vs minor changes to charters, what qualifies. We can expect them to propose some clarifications.
16:01:01 <fantasai> Thanks to florian and Ian for working through these issues / PRs.
16:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
16:57:44 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/19-w3process-minutes.html
16:57:44 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/04/02-w3process-minutes.html
16:57:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
18:09:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process