Meeting minutes
<TallTed> RDF-star WG SPARQL task force, W3Process WG, Solid CG, and DID WG all overlap. Something's gotta give!
<Ian> Agenda
Simple Pull Requests to Review
Confirm CFC
https://
fantasai: Just wanted to check if any complaints
florian: nope
RESOLUTION: Accept edits
Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
PR: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
ISSUE: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
Florian: 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
… Phrased as a note, but that's correct -- it was just reminding of existing things.
plh: I wasn't aware there was a misunderstanding around this part of the process
florian: Some confusion about what's a new REC
fantasai: Confusion came when reviewing a charter, which had errors. Even the Team Contact was confused.
… So wanted to clarify what this paragraph means
… One question was whether to keep the second sentence, which is just examples. Might be useful to keep since it's confusing.
plh: There's a Patent Policy FAQ on the topic of delta specs.
florian: Might want a Guide article about this, but probably on top of this.
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1026
github: w3c/
Clarify role of the Chair
github: Clarify role of the Chair:
github: Clarify role of the Chair:
github: w3c/
florian: Same reaction as you, not sure what motivated the change, but seems harmless!
cwilso: sgtm
RESOLUTION: Merge 1025
Collapse some wording wrt Council formation
github: w3c/
plh: Seems editorial.
… do we need to talk about it?
florian: Replaces text with less text. Effectively editorial.
… I think result is fine.
… TallTed approved it, and was involved in previous iteration, so seems good to merge.
cwilso: Do we say anywhere else that elections don't change the Council membership?
… Seems to warrant saying explicitly, that elections don't change membership.
florian: It's implied by the previous part of the sentence.
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (an unaffected by elections)."
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by elections)."
cwilso: Should be clearer
<plh> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by future elections)." ?
fantasai: It's not just elections
… would suggest taking the wording and adding a note
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by changes to the AB or TAG)."
plh: Maybe adjust the PR, and then come back later?
cwilso: Would be fine to reduce the normative text if we have a note.
… Also happy to leave to Elika to craft the note and do async
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 1022 with addition of a Note
Complicated Pull Requests to Review
Refine Expiration of Charter Refinement
github: w3c/
florian: This defines explicitly that if you extend duration of Charter Refinement, that's a decision.
… 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
… That's to patch the hole that we effectively have a decision, but if we don't declare it as such
… If you abandon by dragging past the deadline, want to make it clear you can complain about it
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
… You mentioned another path to cover the announcement part, where are we with that potential change?
florian: Yes, when we abandon things, we ought to say it. But if we forget, what happens?
… In principle, if Team abandons, should announce it.
… [reads PR]
… I think maybe next PR covers announcement, if not we should talk about it
… Here first, it says that Team may extend the period by sending an announcement.
… That should be no problem.
… Second part says, if fail to announce anything at all, that counts as a de-facto decision to abandon.
… Maybe need to be clear that not supposed to fall under this path.
plh: I'm fine with the proposal.
… Agree with defining as the decision.
… Are we resetting the clock?
… If we announce later?
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?
Ian: I'm mildly uncomfortable with no visible signals of a decision.
… If not announce, I would say there is a no decision. It's a bug.
… At least not a hidden decision.
florian: If decision had irreversible consequences I would agree, but not here. Resuming can be done at no cost with no downside
plh: If Team wants to misbehave, and we have a silent decision to reject
florian: It's a decision, even if silent. If just extended without a decision, then can't object.
… Being silent is bad, but at least we can process it.
plh: let's go to the next
florian: This new paragraph we looked at is moving between two others that will change.
Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement
github: w3c/
florian: There are series of change suggestions from Ted, and I think only the latest is current...
… I think they're attempting to be editorial, but not convinced they're better.
… Anyway
… This decision at the end of Charter Refinement is complicated because it's 3-way decision.
… You can object to one of them, and if you do, and council agrees with you, which of the other two happens?
… So this makes it a bit special. Tries to enable a simple path.
… Maybe I stop talking and we just read it.
https://
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.
… othrewise some options
Ian: I'm questioning whether it's really 3 choices or 2
… 3 is creating some complexity
… Nature of 2 of the choices is very similar: either going to proceed or not proceeding with proposal
… Choice is about the proposa.
… Extending is a process-related proposal, consequence separate from proposal.
… Extending is not the same type of thing
florian: They're not the same type, but about the same thing.
… If Team decides to extend, and someone object, what does that mean?
… 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"
… Maybe it will get consensus because too many people gave up engaging
… But that's not good
… [more examples]
… [explains the PR]
… Idk that this is perfect, but I think we need to do something here.
plh: The GH changes are hard to read. If you look at the diff it's a lot easier to understand.
TallTed: Doesn't show the suggestions. I was trying to make clearer the fork in the road.
… fantasai's comment was saying we give the Team a choice
https://
florian: I agree that the last suggestion means the same as what I intend.
… earlier ones maybe not
plh: How do ppl feel? do we merge with the suggestions, or ppl unhappy?
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.
Ian: This complicates the situation. Should say either go to AC review or not; or extend or not. Two decisions.
… Too complicated for general case.
TallTed: Sympathetic with Ian, but the reason for documents like this is to cover the edge cases.
… If the edge cases arrive, this is how we deal.
… Contracts are there for when someone stops being reasonable.
<Ian> fantasai: Council path is not necessarily a 2-month path. The Council could short-circuit
<plh> fantasai: the council is not necessarily a 3-months path, it could be short-circuit
florian: Agree some complexity. But we have difference of textual complexity and situational complexity.
… Some text that is easy to apply.
… But without it we can be put into awkward situations
… which can be more intricate.
… So trade-off between real complexity vs textual complexity, prefer the latter
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to TallTed
Ian: Ted, I take your point about why contracts exist.
… But how we write it may be different from the topics it covers.
… If it were written so that 99% case were covered simply, and addendum for the complicated cases
… E.g. add that you can object to an extension
… Cover the edge case after the ordinary case
florian: Formally objecting to abandoning or extending is not going to be uncommon anyway
… so the whole paragraph is an exception
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.
… weaving 3rd option complicates reading of the usual case
plh: Here's what I propose, Ian, if you can live with it.
… If we merge this PR as-is, and if we have better wording during wide review, we can come back
florian: Yes. There's an editorial question. And there's a substantive one.
… Sure, we can take various editorial options.
… But there's a quesiton of what options to people have.
… I think the existence of these options will make reality simpler.
… So I agree with plh, let's merge the PR and then work on editorial improvements.
Ian: I'm ok with that approach.
plh: So let's merge 1012 and 1011, with TallTed's suggestion and typo fix
florian: Ok, so then our follow-up actions would be look at editorial improvements, and ensure sufficient announcements
RESOLUTION: Merge 1012 and 1011
Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide
github: w3c/
florian: We discussed previously
… Process doesn't need to say too much, because would be in Guide
<Ian> scribe nick: Ian
fantasai: Ian provided a list of considerations beyond the two in the text.
… but 4 fall under scope and mission.
… various ones are covered by mission and mature.
… I don't love having assessment elsewhere which might be arbitrary
… it would be nice to create a category like "otherwise impractical"
fantasai: I will not object to this (given time constraint)
<fantasai> Ian: There's value in being more explicit because it becomes more predictable
<fantasai> ... For example, some of the things you said might be understood to be related to maturity, might not jump out at somebody
<fantasai> ... So might be surprised if advised if they need to get more community support
<fantasai> ... So value in being explicit, but not in Process
<fantasai> ... So pushed off a lot to staff to get things done
<fantasai> ... Don't expect there to be any absurd requests
<TallTed> age doesn't automatically equate to maturity...
<fantasai> florian: "otherwise doesn't meet the criteria" is open-ended, but they can object to things in Guide
<fantasai> ... so I'm ok with this
<fantasai> plh: Seems we need a PR for Guidebook
<fantasai> Ian: We have a whole revision to do, and I have a draft of that, but haven't updated lately
<fantasai> plh: Yes, but here we're linking to Guide so we should be clear
<fantasai> ... if we do merge this, we need a PR against Guidebook
<fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook
AC Recall of the AB or TAG
<fantasai> PR: w3c/
ISSUE: w3c/
<fantasai> florian: [summarizes PR]
<fantasai> ... AB has interest in this, but not resolved to add yet.
<fantasai> ... Martin Thomson has a bunch of comments wrt how AC Appeals are run
<fantasai> plh: Did we have feedback from the TAG on this PR?
fantasai: AB was split on whether to have both mechanisms or only one.
… that's an ongoing AB conversation
Florian: The AB needs to ask the TAG
<fantasai> our job here is to refine the proposal and forward to the AB for a decision
PLH: If the AB wants to merge it they can do so, but the CG shouldn't do the merge on its own
<fantasai> plh: Any comments on this PR before it goes to the AB?
<fantasai> florian: As part of rebasing, I had to deal with conflicts and things
<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".
<fantasai> ... as opposed to "removal" when removing one member
<fantasai> fantasai: "vote of confidence" refers to just the vote. "recall" covers the whole process
<fantasai> florian: Other question is, is the re-use of the AC Appeal mechanism appropriate way to do this.
<fantasai> fantasai: Running a full recall is pretty heavy, should requre the AC to vote for it to happen.
<fantasai> plh: Can we send to AB ?
<fantasai> florian: Merging stuff related to removal/recall is the last major thing.
<fantasai> plh: Assuming they reach a conclusion, can we start the wide review of the process docuent?
<fantasai> florian: I think that's where we are
Scheduling
<fantasai> fantasai: We're still waiting on PSIG
<fantasai> [discussion of scheduling]
<fantasai> Meeting closed.