14:00:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:00:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-w3process-irc
14:00:50 <florian> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:01:23 <florian> rrsagent, pointer
14:01:23 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-w3process-irc#T14-01-23
14:01:28 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
14:01:33 <florian> present+
14:02:47 <Ian> Ian has joined #w3process
14:02:50 <Ian> present+
14:04:30 <cwilso> present+
14:04:52 <TallTed> RDF-star WG SPARQL task force, W3Process WG, Solid CG, and  DID WG all overlap. Something's gotta give!
14:08:12 <plh> present+
14:08:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
14:08:27 <Ian> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Apr/0004.html Agenda
14:08:32 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
14:08:39 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Request to Review
14:08:47 <fantasai> Subtopic: Confirm CFC
14:08:52 <Ian> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Apr/0004.html
14:08:52 <fantasai> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Apr/0003.html
14:09:23 <fantasai> fantasai: Just wanted to check if any complaints
14:09:25 <fantasai> florian: nope
14:09:42 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept edits
14:09:47 <fantasai> Subtopic: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
14:09:53 <fantasai> PR: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
14:09:58 <fantasai> Issue: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
14:10:37 <TallTed> present+
14:10:40 <fantasai> Seems like a reasonable change. This is a part of the spec has confused people, and the attempt seems good to me, maybe a bit longer
14:10:44 <fantasai> s/Seems/Florian:/
14:10:57 <fantasai> ... Phrased as a note, but that's correct -- it was just reminding of existing things.
14:11:17 <fantasai> plh: I wasn't aware there was a misunderstanding around this part of the process
14:11:22 <fantasai> florian: Some confusion about what's a new REC
14:12:16 <fantasai> fantasai: Confusion came when reviewing a charter, which had errors. Even the Team Contact was confused.
14:12:36 <fantasai> ... So wanted to clarify what this paragraph means
14:12:59 <fantasai> ... One question was whether to keep the second sentence, which is just examples. Might be useful to keep since it's confusing.
14:13:10 <fantasai> plh: There's a Patent Policy FAQ on the topic of delta specs.
14:13:20 <fantasai> florian: Might want a Guide article about this, but probably on top of this.
14:13:25 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept PR 1026
14:13:35 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1026
14:13:44 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify role of the Chair
14:13:53 <fantasai> github: Clarify role of the Chair:
14:13:59 <fantasai> github: Clarify role of the Chair:
14:14:09 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1025
14:14:47 <fantasai> florian: Same reaction as you, what sure what motivated the change, but seems harmless!
14:14:56 <fantasai> cwilso: sgtm
14:15:01 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1025
14:15:10 <fantasai> Subtopic: Collapse some wording wrt Council formation
14:15:15 <florian> s/what sure/not sure/
14:15:19 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1022
14:15:24 <fantasai> plh: Seems editorial.
14:15:28 <fantasai> ... do we need to talk about it?
14:15:36 <fantasai> florian: Replaces text with less text. Effectively editorial.
14:15:54 <fantasai> ... I think result is fine.
14:16:01 <cwilso> q+
14:16:08 <fantasai> ... TallTed approved it, and was involved in previous iteration, so seems good to merge.
14:16:50 <plh> ack cw
14:16:58 <fantasai> cwilso: Do we say anywhere else that elections don't change the Council membership?
14:17:14 <fantasai> ... Seems to warrant saying explicitly, that elections don't change membership.
14:17:28 <fantasai> florian: It's implied by the previous part of the sentence.
14:17:51 <Ian> Could say "is fixed (an unaffected by elections)."
14:17:57 <Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by elections)."
14:18:05 <fantasai> cwilso: Should be clearer
14:18:16 <plh> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by future elections)." ?
14:18:34 <fantasai> fantasai: It's not just elections
14:18:41 <fantasai> ... would suggest taking the wording and adding a note
14:18:46 <Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by changes to the AB or TAG)."
14:19:37 <fantasai> plh: Maybe adjust the PR, and then come back later?
14:19:48 <fantasai> cwilso: Would be fine to reduce the normative text if we have a note.
14:19:57 <fantasai> ... Also happy to leave to Elika to craft the note and do async
14:20:06 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 1022 with addition of a Note
14:20:48 <fantasai> s/Pull Request to Review/Simple Pull Requests to Review/
14:20:56 <fantasai> Topic: Complicated Pull Requests to Review
14:21:02 <fantasai> Subtopic: Refine Expiration of Charter Refinement
14:21:08 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1011
14:21:35 <fantasai> florian: This defines explicitly that if you extend duration of Charter Refinement, that's a decision.
14:21:52 <fantasai> ... It also clarified that if you reach the deadline and fail to do anything: don't extend, don't move forward, etc. -- That counts as giving up
14:21:56 <Ian> q+
14:22:07 <fantasai> ... That's to patch the hole that we effectively have a decision, but if we don't declare it as such
14:22:14 <plh> q+
14:22:23 <fantasai> ... If you abandon by dragging past the deadline, want to make it clear you can complain about it
14:22:26 <plh> ack ian
14:22:52 <fantasai> Ian: I had mentioned in the thread that if we're giving people an opportunity to object, they have to know about their 8-week window's start
14:23:04 <fantasai> ... You mentioned another path to cover the announcement part, where are we with that potential change?
14:23:20 <fantasai> florian: Yes, when we abandon things, we ought to say it. But if we forget, what happens?
14:23:40 <fantasai> ... In principle, if Team abandons, should announce it.
14:24:10 <fantasai> ... [reads PR]
14:24:21 <fantasai> ... I think maybe next PR covers announcement, if not we should talk about it
14:24:33 <fantasai> ... Here first, it says that Team may extend the period by sending an announcement.
14:24:37 <fantasai> ... That should be no problem.
14:24:55 <fantasai> ... Second part says, if fail to announce anything at all, that counts as a de-facto decision to abandon.
14:25:08 <fantasai> ... Maybe need to be clear that not supposed to fall under this path.
14:25:32 <plh> ack plh
14:25:44 <fantasai> plh: I'm fine with the proposal.
14:25:53 <fantasai> ... Agree with defining as the decision.
14:25:57 <fantasai> ... Are we resetting the clock?
14:26:12 <fantasai> ... If we announce later?
14:26:45 <fantasai> florian: My idea is let's not be overprescriptive, use common sense. If you miss the deadline by a day or two, it's fine, what's the difference between extending and starting a new effort?
14:27:09 <fantasai> Ian: I'm mildly uncomfortable with no visible signals of a decision.
14:27:27 <fantasai> ... If not announce, I would say there is a no decision. It's a bug.
14:27:39 <fantasai> ... At least not a hidden decision.
14:27:58 <fantasai> florian: If decision had irreversible consequences I would agree, but not here. Resuming can be done at no cost with no downside
14:28:07 <fantasai> plh: If Team wants to misbehave, and we have a silent decision to reject
14:28:20 <fantasai> florian: It's a decision, even if silent. If just extended without a decision, then can't object.
14:28:30 <fantasai> ... Being silent is bad, but at least we can process it.
14:28:49 <fantasai> plh: let's go to the next
14:29:04 <fantasai> florian: This new paragraph we looked at is moving between two others that will change.
14:29:11 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement
14:29:16 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012
14:29:47 <fantasai> florian: There are series of change suggestions from Ted, and I think only the latest is current...
14:30:06 <fantasai> ... I think they're attempting to be editorial, but not convinced they're better.
14:30:09 <fantasai> ... Anyway
14:30:22 <fantasai> ... This decision at the end of Charter Refinement is complicated because it's 3-way decision.
14:30:37 <fantasai> ... You can object to one of them, and if you do, and council agrees with you, which of the other two happens?
14:30:46 <fantasai> ... So this makes it a bit special. Tries to enable a simple path.
14:30:54 <fantasai> ... Maybe I stop talking and we just read it.
14:31:03 <Ian> q+
14:31:25 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012/files
14:31:54 <fantasai> florian: Note one thing that doesn't change, if someone objects to start of AC Review, nothing special happens -- just batch the FO with the rest.
14:31:59 <fantasai> ... othrewise some options
14:32:01 <plh> ack ian
14:32:07 <fantasai> Ian: I'm questioning whether it's really 3 choices or 2
14:32:15 <fantasai> ... 3 is creating some complexity
14:32:29 <fantasai> ... Nature of 2 of the choices is very similar: either going to proceed or not proceeding with proposal
14:32:33 <fantasai> ... Choice is about the proposa.
14:32:52 <fantasai> ... Extending is a process-related proposal, consequence separate from proposal.
14:33:13 <fantasai> ... Extending is not the same type of thing
14:33:23 <fantasai> florian: They're not the same type, but about the same thing.
14:33:35 <fantasai> ... If Team decides to extend, and someone object, what does that mean?
14:34:09 <fantasai> ... Does it mean "it's good enough, send it to the AC" or "it's never going to have consensus, give up already, let's not waste our resources continuing"
14:34:25 <fantasai> ... Maybe it will get consensus because too many people gave up engaging
14:34:31 <fantasai> ... But that's not good
14:34:36 <fantasai> ... [more examples]
14:35:22 <fantasai> ... [explains the PR]
14:35:41 <fantasai> ... Idk that this is perfect, but I think we need to do something here.
14:35:45 <plh> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/process/1012/5f0a694...frivoal:0b9b15a.html#charter-development
14:35:54 <fantasai> plh: The GH changes are hard to read. If you look at the diff it's a lot easier to understand.
14:36:34 <fantasai> TallTed: Doesn't show the suggestions. I was trying to make clearer the fork in the road.
14:36:59 <fantasai> ... fantasai's comment was saying we give the Team a choice
14:37:03 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012/files#r2039908853
14:37:27 <fantasai> florian: I agree that the last suggestion means the same as what I intend.
14:37:32 <fantasai> ... earlier ones maybe not
14:38:01 <Ian> q+
14:38:02 <fantasai> plh: How do ppl feel? do we merge with the suggestions, or ppl unhappy?
14:38:11 <plh> ack ian
14:38:40 <fantasai> Ian: I remain uncomfortable. Spidey sense about the complication. If we want to extend by a month and someone FOs, then have 2 months of FO handling.
14:39:44 <TallTed> q+
14:39:56 <fantasai> Ian: This complicates the situation. Should say either go to AC review or not; or extend or not. Two decisions.
14:40:01 <florian> q+
14:40:04 <fantasai> ... Too complicated for general case.
14:40:07 <plh> ack fantasai
14:40:18 <plh> q+ fantasai
14:40:24 <plh> ack ted
14:40:30 <plh> ack tallted
14:40:31 <fantasai> TallTed: Sympathetic with Ian, but the reason for documents like this is to cover the edge cases.
14:40:41 <fantasai> ... If the edge cases arrive, this is how we deal.
14:40:47 <Ian> q+
14:40:49 <fantasai> ... Contracts are there for when someone stops being reasonable.
14:40:54 <plh> ack florian
14:41:43 <Ian> fantasai: Council path is not necessarily a 2-month path. The Council could short-circuit
14:41:47 <plh> fantasai: the council is not necessarily a 3-months path, it could be short-circuit
14:42:11 <fantasai> florian: Agree some complexity. But we have difference of textual complexity and situational complexity.
14:42:16 <fantasai> ... Some text that is easy to apply.
14:42:25 <fantasai> ... But without it we can be put into awkward situations
14:42:29 <fantasai> ... which can be more intricate.
14:42:40 <fantasai> ... So trade-off between real complexity vs textual complexity, prefer the latter
14:42:46 <plh> ack fantasai
14:42:46 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to TallTed
14:42:51 <plh> ack ian
14:43:00 <fantasai> Ian: Ted, I take your point about why contracts exist.
14:43:16 <fantasai> ... But how we write it may be different from the topics it covers.
14:43:29 <fantasai> ... If it were written so that 99% case were covered simply, and addendum for the complicated cases
14:43:41 <fantasai> ... E.g. add that you can object to an extension
14:43:46 <florian> q+
14:43:54 <fantasai> ... Cover the edge case after the ordinary case
14:44:00 <plh> ack florian
14:44:12 <fantasai> florian: Formally objecting to abandoning or extending is not going to be uncommon anyway
14:44:21 <fantasai> ... so the whole paragraph is an exception
14:45:00 <fantasai> Ian: We have this lighter-weight objection mechanism with 5 people. Remains in place. But bit about extension be dealt with separately after that. That will happen approximately 0% of the time.
14:45:25 <fantasai> ... weaving 3rd option complicates reading of the usual case
14:45:39 <fantasai> plh: Here's what I propose, Ian, if you can live with it.
14:45:56 <fantasai> ... If we merge this PR as-is, and if we have better wording during wide review, we can come back
14:46:05 <fantasai> florian: Yes. There's an editorial question. And there's a substantive one.
14:46:17 <fantasai> ... Sure, we can take various editorial options.
14:46:27 <fantasai> ... But there's a quesiton of what options to people have.
14:46:36 <fantasai> ... I think the existence of these options will make reality simpler.
14:46:45 <fantasai> ... So I agree with plh, let's merge the PR and then work on editorial improvements.
14:46:50 <fantasai> Ian: I'm ok with that approach.
14:47:22 <fantasai> plh: So let's merge 1012 and 1011, with TallTed's suggestion and typo fix
14:47:45 <fantasai> florian: Ok, so then our follow-up actions would be look at editorial improvements, and ensure sufficient announcements
14:47:53 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1012 and 1011
14:48:11 <fantasai> Subtopic: Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide
14:48:18 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1000
14:48:41 <fantasai> florian: We discussed previously
14:49:00 <fantasai> ... Process doesn't need to say too much, because would be in Guide
14:49:03 <Ian> q+
14:49:19 <Ian> scribe nick: Ian
14:49:23 <Ian> scribenick: Ian
14:49:39 <Ian> fantasai: Ian provided a list of considerations beyond the two in the text.
14:49:49 <Ian> ...but 4 fall under scope and mission.
14:50:23 <Ian> ...various ones are covered by mission and mature.
14:50:42 <Ian> ...I don't love having assessment elsewhere which might be arbitrary
14:51:02 <Ian> ...it would be nice to create a category like "otherwise impractical"
14:51:10 <florian> q+
14:51:45 <Ian> fantasai: I will not object to this (given time constraint)
14:51:49 <plh> ack ian
14:52:06 <fantasai> Ian: There's value in being more explicit because it becomes more predictable
14:52:22 <fantasai> ... For example, some of the things you said might be understood to be related to maturity, might not jump out at somebody
14:52:35 <fantasai> ... So might be surprised if advised if they need to get more community support
14:52:46 <fantasai> ... So value in being explicit, but not in Process
14:52:52 <fantasai> ... So pushed off a lot to staff to get things done
14:53:06 <fantasai> ... Don't expect there to be any absurd requests
14:53:07 <TallTed> age doesn't automatically equate to maturity...
14:53:39 <fantasai> florian: "otherwise doesn't meet the criteria" is open-ended, but they can object to things in Guide
14:53:42 <fantasai> ... so I'm ok with this
14:53:59 <fantasai> plh: Seems we need a PR for Guidebook
14:54:08 <fantasai> Ian: We have a whole revision to do, and I have a draft of that, but haven't updated lately
14:54:29 <fantasai> plh: Yes, but here we're linking to Guide so we should be clear
14:54:41 <fantasai> ... if we do merge this, we need a PR against Guidebook
14:54:45 <fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge?
14:55:06 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook
14:55:30 <fantasai> Subtopic: AC Recall of the AB or TAG
14:55:43 <fantasai> PR: AC Recall of the AB or TAG
14:55:54 <fantasai> s/PR: AC Recall of the AB or TAG//
14:55:59 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/888
14:56:06 <fantasai> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/882
14:56:12 <fantasai> florian: [summarizes PR]
14:56:22 <fantasai> ... AB has interest in this, but not resolved to add yet.
14:56:41 <fantasai> ... Martin Thomson has a bunch of comments wrt how AC Appeals are run
14:57:12 <fantasai> plh: Did we have feedback from the TAG on this PR?
14:57:49 <Ian> fantasai: AB was split on whether to have both mechanisms or only one.
14:57:53 <Ian> ...that's an ongoing AB conversation
14:58:54 <Ian> Florian: The AB needs to ask the TAG
14:59:03 <fantasai> ... our job here is to refine the proposal and forward to the AB for a decision
14:59:11 <Ian> PLH: If the AB wants to merge it they can do so, but the CG shouldn't do the merge on its own
14:59:12 <fantasai> s/.../
14:59:25 <fantasai> plh: Any comments on this PR before it goes to the AB?
14:59:38 <fantasai> florian: As part of rebasing, I had to deal with conflicts and things
14:59:56 <fantasai> ... This ability to fire entirety of AB or TAG has been called a "recall" or a "vote of no confidence". Latest calls it a "recall".
15:00:07 <fantasai> ... as opposed to "removal" when removing one member
15:00:36 <fantasai> fantasai: "vote of confidence" refers to just the vote. "recall" covers the whole process
15:00:50 <fantasai> florian: Other question is, is the re-use of the AC Appeal mechanism appropriate way to do this.
15:01:43 <fantasai> fantasai: Running a full recall is pretty heavy, should requre the AC to vote for it to happen.
15:02:24 <fantasai> plh: Can we send to AB ?
15:02:37 <fantasai> Topic: Moving Forward
15:02:48 <fantasai> s/Topic: Moving Forward//
15:02:58 <fantasai> florian: Merging stuff related to removal/recall is the last major thing.
15:03:09 <fantasai> plh: Assuming they reach a conclusion, can we start the wide review of the process docuent?
15:03:20 <fantasai> florian: I think that's where we are
15:04:01 <fantasai> Topic: Scheduling
15:04:09 <fantasai> fantasai: We're still waiting on PSIG
15:05:22 <fantasai> [discussion of scheduling]
15:14:05 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
15:17:33 <florian> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:17:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-w3process-minutes.html florian
17:11:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process