14:03:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:03:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/11-w3process-irc
14:03:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
14:03:59 <Ian> present+
14:04:02 <fantasai> present+
14:04:07 <fantasai> Topic: Overview
14:04:28 <fantasai> plh: In the home stretch of Process 2025, review period closes on 16th
14:04:53 <fantasai> i/plh/scribenick: fantasai
14:05:09 <fantasai> plh: Some comments from asking Team to look into deploying
14:05:20 <cwilso> present+
14:05:35 <cwilso> present+ hdv, Ian
14:05:43 <brent> present+
14:05:47 <TallTed> present+
14:05:51 <fantasai> plh: [reviews how Process CG works, welcomes new members of AB]
14:05:52 <plh> present+
14:05:56 <fantasai> Topic: New Issues to Triage
14:05:56 <florian> present+
14:06:00 <fantasai> Subtopic: Inconsistent terms for "Note"
14:06:11 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1064
14:06:26 <fantasai> florian: Issue claims we have inconsistent terms for Note
14:06:40 <fantasai> ... used to have different types of notes depending on who issued
14:06:46 <fantasai> ... collapsed to Group Note
14:07:08 <fantasai> ... and used Bikeshed linking abilities to anchor all of the more specific terms to the same <dfn>
14:07:19 <fantasai> ... Side-effect is that Bikeshed lists all these terms in the index of terminology
14:07:29 <fantasai> ... which exposes terms we aren't using
14:07:46 <fantasai> ... But it seems very unlikely anyone is using auto-linking to these terms
14:08:01 <fantasai> ... So the PR simply drops these aliases, so they are no longer in the index
14:08:24 <fantasai> plh: In Process 2020 TR templates, I stopped calling "Working Group Note" vs "Interest Group Note" and went to "Group Note"
14:08:52 <fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge PR 1067?
14:08:53 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1067
14:09:05 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1067 to drop aliases from <dfn> for group note
14:09:15 <fantasai> Subtopic: Use "Staff Contact" instead of "Team Contact"
14:09:37 <fantasai> plh: I'm not aware of anyone objecting to this. I circulated to the Team, no one seems to really care
14:09:45 <fantasai> github: Use "Staff Contact" instead of "Team Contact"
14:10:12 <fantasai> florian: I've made a PR that mostly does this, but /Guide has lots of references to Team Contact
14:10:37 <fantasai> ... so the PR changes internal usage and the official <dfn>, but includes the term "Team Contact" as a alias
14:10:48 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1068
14:11:35 <fantasai> ACTION: Plh to update Guidebook
14:11:40 <fantasai> plh: Any objections?
14:11:58 <fantasai> Ian: Because Team is Staff and Fellows, does this imply that Fellow can't be a Team Contact?
14:12:07 <fantasai> plh: Fellow can be a Staff Contact
14:12:33 <fantasai> florian: I think broad perception is that Team and Staff is interchangeable, and doesn't matter if contractors or employees etc.
14:13:02 <fantasai> fantasai: Fellow is a bit different from hired by W3C
14:13:18 <fantasai> plh: Process doesn't care, Team is whoever we say it is
14:13:28 <fantasai> plh: Objections to merge?
14:13:39 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1068 to rename Team Contact to Staff Contact
14:13:49 <fantasai> Subtopic: Republishing a CR Snapshot for AC Review
14:13:58 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1063
14:14:08 <fantasai> plh: We are simplifying the Process by removing Proposed Recommendation
14:14:15 <fantasai> ... WG doesn't need to republish as PR
14:14:32 <fantasai> ... This was a purely Member thing, not clear what it means to public
14:14:45 <fantasai> ... So run AC Review on Snapshot, ok
14:15:00 <florian> q
14:15:02 <florian> q+
14:15:12 <fantasai> ... But a lot of groups are on auto-publish, fixing stuff gets published into CRD automatically
14:15:34 <fantasai> ... then we are requiring a CR Snapshot and a call for exclusions which is essentially empty of substantive changes
14:15:46 <fantasai> ... [missed]
14:15:53 <plh> ack florian
14:15:55 <fantasai> florian: 2 ways to deal with, and not sure which way to go
14:16:06 <brent> q+
14:16:08 <fantasai> ... Problem is that CR Drafts could contain things other than editorial changes
14:16:24 <fantasai> ... and because they're on autopublish and without Team Verification, when a CRD exists, we don't know a priori what's in it
14:16:30 <Ian> (The proposal says "as long as no substantive changes were made since the last CR Snapshot.")
14:16:37 <fantasai> ... starting from a CRD is dangerous, because could include substantive changes
14:16:48 <fantasai> ... First way to deal with this is to pretend problem doesn't exist
14:17:12 <fantasai> ... Run AC Review on CR Snapshot, indicate on the side we'll fix typos etc, don't worry, then fold them in after AC Review
14:17:21 <fantasai> ... Or apply those fixes during REC, which is allowed
14:17:28 <fantasai> ... But this is not very elegant
14:17:50 <fantasai> ... Alternative is that you can run from a CR Draft, but with extra condition: Team MUST verify that there are no substantive changes from the last CR Snapshot
14:18:06 <fantasai> ... So it might be simpler to be able to run CR Draft, but need extra round of verification.
14:18:10 <plh> ack brent
14:18:29 <fantasai> brent: Probably a bad idea, but another option would be to allow for a CR Snapshot to be done with the review of substantive changes
14:18:37 <fantasai> ... and if no substantive changes then that review is cut short
14:18:47 <fantasai> ... so change to CR Snapshot process
14:18:59 <fantasai> plh: It's a bad idea, because messes with Patent Policy.
14:19:16 <fantasai> ... less than 60-day review for patent policy
14:19:19 <plh> ack fantasai
14:19:40 <florian> fantasai: I am pretty sure we cannot change the 60 day window, it's part of the Patent policy
14:20:13 <florian> fantasai: the issue is not getting to CRS, the reviews to get there are controlled by the Team, they could wave those that aren't needed
14:20:41 <florian> fantasai: The problem would be what happens after you get to CRS: the patent review cannot be skipped, even if it isn't needed
14:21:29 <fantasai> plh: But Process prevents us from closing AC review less than 10 days after the the close of the exclusion period
14:22:01 <fantasai> florian: If people are in agreement, I can make a PR. Should I just merge it...?
14:22:11 <fantasai> plh: We'll have a call next week as well, actually.
14:22:30 <fantasai> florian: So I will allow AC Review on CRD as long as Team Verifies no changes.
14:23:02 <fantasai> plh: we used to have a sentence requiring disclosure of whether features can be added at REC
14:23:08 <fantasai> ... we removed that requirement, but didn't replace with anything
14:23:17 <fantasai> florian: I think we did. You have to have that sentence before REC.
14:23:31 <fantasai> plh: So when starting AC Review, then need to ask if want to add new features or not
14:24:00 <fantasai> ... WG might say yes, sure, then we republish CRD
14:24:07 <fantasai> florian: Just need to add in CRD before REC
14:24:10 <fantasai> fantasai: You need to add before AC Review
14:24:14 <fantasai> plh: And run on that draft
14:24:30 <fantasai> florian: Let me check for where that is in the Process
14:24:44 <fantasai> florian: If we agree, I'll make the PR for CRD checking and check for that sentence.
14:25:10 <fantasai> Topic: Pull Requests to Review
14:25:21 <fantasai> plh: Can we make those changes after wide review, or not? Do we need more review now?
14:25:33 <fantasai> ... if need more review, let's not make those changes and just ship P2025
14:26:04 <fantasai> florian: Largely I agree with you, but I think the 2nd one is tiny enough to be safe to include. Third I wouldn't include, but if we find wording we like we can give AB and they can decide
14:26:26 <fantasai> ... for the multi-point Councils, it's effectively editorial. But emphasis change. But I wouldn't block on any of it
14:26:37 <plh> ack fan
14:26:47 <fantasai> fantasai: I would really like to take the first one
14:26:59 <fantasai> plh: ok, let's reivew each one and also decide whether to incldue for P2025
14:27:05 <fantasai> Topic: Multi-point Multi-FO Councils
14:27:10 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1041
14:27:16 <fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1045
14:27:45 <fantasai> florian: Council is written to batch FOs into a single Council, but there is some careless phrasing that implies there's a single FO
14:27:50 <fantasai> ... so goal is to clarify this
14:28:07 <fantasai> ... We discussed last time and the phrasing kinda-sorta worked, but not entirely, so fantasai revised the PR
14:28:51 <fantasai> florian: Council decides whether to uphold or overturn the decision, but cwilso noted that some of the tweaks reduced emphasis that every point in every FO must be considered
14:28:59 <fantasai> ... so new wording highlights this by calling it out explicitly
14:29:05 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1045#discussion_r2136925848
14:29:27 <fantasai> ... the other thing is that the words we used, "confirm" or "overturn", and "confirm" felt like it had a bit of incubment bias
14:29:34 <fantasai> ... shouldn't assume that it was a good decision, should look at it
14:29:40 <fantasai> ... so switched to "uphold"
14:29:49 <fantasai> ... if we like these changes we can modify PR and merge
14:30:29 <fantasai> florian: Updated PR would be to merge fantasai's change, and s/confirm/uphold/g
14:30:33 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1045/files
14:30:43 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm ok with this
14:31:01 <fantasai> plh: It sounds to me that no disagreement about this general direction, so I'd be comfortable merging this PR and including as part of AC Review
14:31:16 <fantasai> ... I would be surprised if someone says that wasn't an expectation, especially since we've been acting that way
14:31:26 <fantasai> plh: Any objection to merging this PR with the two suggestions?
14:31:32 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1045 with suggestions from fantasai
14:31:43 <fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify timing of Council being convened
14:31:50 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1046
14:32:25 <fantasai> florian: Some confusion about when the Council is convened. Dismissal and renunciation was implied before selecting a chair, but this wasn't every explicit.
14:32:52 <fantasai> ... so this makes it explicit that this is all required before convening Council
14:33:02 <fantasai> ... no confusion that you could convene before running dismissal/renunciation
14:33:13 <fantasai> plh: Does this make the council dependent on the Team Report?
14:33:18 <fantasai> florian: That text was already there
14:33:28 <fantasai> plh: I thought we fixed that
14:33:42 <fantasai> florian: there's another section (next paragraph) that allows council to start without Team report
14:33:58 <fantasai> plh: Any other opinions on this? I think this is ok for AC Review.
14:34:07 <TallTed> q+
14:34:11 <fantasai> fantasai: This is totally editorial, and I am in favor of merging
14:34:15 <plh> ack tall
14:34:33 <fantasai> TallTed: I would put "and" between dismissal and renunciation
14:35:28 <fantasai> s/I would put "and" between dismissal and renunciation/I would put subsequent after dismissal and renunciation/
14:36:11 <fantasai> florian: I think it's permissible to run chair selection while running dismissal and renunciation, but need to actually finish the selection by the end.
14:36:21 <fantasai> florian: I'm ok either way, up to you and Ted
14:36:25 <fantasai> cwilso: I'd prefer without
14:36:37 <plh> ack fan
14:36:59 <florian> fantasai: I agree with Chris. The point of this section is not about the order of things, just that they all need to be done
14:37:06 <fantasai> s/without/without, implies serialization/
14:37:16 <fantasai> plh: I'm fine with the suggestion from Ted
14:37:24 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm hearing hesitation from fantasai and cwilso
14:37:30 <fantasai> cwilso: What is it intended to add?
14:37:53 <fantasai> ... to me it says "don't start chair selection until renunciation and dismissal concludes", and I don't think we want that. You can't complete, but can start.
14:38:01 <fantasai> plh: How about we merge without Ted's suggestion?
14:38:02 <fantasai> cwilso: sure
14:38:06 <fantasai> plh: Any objections?
14:38:16 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1046
14:38:29 <plh> ack fan
14:38:48 <florian> fantasai: I wanted to add another PR that's editorial
14:38:58 <fantasai> Subtopic: Explaining Council Confidentiality Requirement
14:39:02 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1069
14:39:22 <florian> fantasai: there was some discussion and confusion about why councils need to be confidentials
14:39:59 <florian> fantasai: the deliberations are confidential to that council and the team contact, not more broadly, not to past/future other councils
14:40:24 <fantasai> plh: I'm worried we'll open Pandora's box with this
14:40:40 <florian> fantasai: that was deliberate when the process was designed, but some people have asked question, so I thought adding a Note to explain would be helpful
14:41:09 <fantasai> florian: There were two reasons, one was sensitive information. Another was protection from retaliation, to be able to speak their mind.
14:41:21 <fantasai> ... That's true regardless of whether you receive information in confidence.
14:41:31 <plh> q+ Ian
14:41:34 <plh> q+ plh
14:41:36 <fantasai> ... I agree that what the note says is right, i.e. is what was intended when we created the Process
14:41:38 <plh> ack ian
14:41:41 <fantasai> ... Whether it's useful to say it is a different question.
14:42:13 <fantasai> Ian: I see that we have a /Guide entry for nature of Council deliberations. That seems like a good place to put an informative note.
14:42:45 <plh> ack plh
14:42:48 <plh> ack fan
14:42:49 <fantasai> plh: Yes, Process is too long. Can we reduce it. If we explain every line in Process, will be super long. Prefer to put into Guidebook
14:43:06 <florian> fantasai: There are two audiences for this note: one is people who are generally curious
14:43:07 <Ian> fantasai: There are two audiences for this note: (1) curious people (2) future Process Doc editors
14:43:18 <florian> fantasai: others is future people who are going to be maintaining the process
14:44:08 <fantasai> plh: could say that about any other line in the process
14:44:16 <florian> fantasai: having the note in place in the process is intended to give pause to any future AB/Process CG who would be tempted to take an axe to this for the sake of simplicity
14:44:16 <fantasai> fantasai: most of the other lines are easier to understand why they're there
14:44:30 <fantasai> plh: What do other people think?
14:44:43 <fantasai> florian: I agree with what the note says. Don't have a strong view on where. I hear fantasai's point.
14:45:04 <fantasai> florian: I'm mildly in favor
14:45:07 <fantasai> cwilso: Yeah, I'm mildly in favor
14:45:13 <brent> q+
14:45:22 <fantasai> florian: I strongly agree with the message, and mildly agree it's the right place to put it
14:45:24 <plh> ack brent
14:45:38 <fantasai> brent: Mildly in favor, but agree with Tzviya's suggestion to remove the parenthetical
14:45:53 <hdv> +1
14:46:17 <fantasai> fantasai: I was debating whether to have it or not, and added because easier to review that quesiton that way :)
14:46:24 <TallTed> +1 add the note minus the parenthetical ... tho I don't know that it achieves the stated goal
14:46:27 <fantasai> plh: Objections to merge the note without the parenthetical?
14:47:20 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1069 without parenthetical.
14:47:38 <fantasai> Subtopic: Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies
14:47:45 <fantasai> github: Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies
14:47:53 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1051
14:48:51 <florian> fantasai: I think this PR needs a bit of work, so it's probably not going to be done today
14:49:13 <florian> fantasai: but what it's trying to do is to give chairs explicit power to suspend people in emergency cases
14:49:33 <florian> fantasai: The hangup is trying to find the right wording
14:49:46 <florian> fantasai: there was a suggestion to refer to the Code of Conduct
14:50:03 <florian> fantasai: but it doesn't cover *all* problematic situations
14:50:08 <cwilso> q+
14:50:09 <florian> fantasai: nigel had a suggestion
14:50:22 <plh> q+ Ian
14:50:24 <florian> plh: I like the direction, but I don't think it's ready to merge
14:50:26 <plh> ack cw
14:51:09 <florian> cwilso: I still object to the Chair's ability to kick people out for "well established" but not written rule. There's too much room for abuse
14:51:14 <florian> q+
14:51:27 <plh> q+
14:51:32 <florian> cwilso: Chairs shouldn't have the ability to kick people out for "that's not how we do things"
14:51:34 <plh> ack ian
14:52:01 <fantasai> cwilso: But I'm in favor of adding this ability to the Process
14:52:27 <cwilso> as long as the "well established" is documented and expected, not possibly arbitrary.
14:52:32 <fantasai> Ian: Sorry, only noticed this PR this morning. My quick skim of the Code of Conduct is that this is taken into account, section 4 empowers chairs to take action they deem necessary
14:52:41 <fantasai> ... why does Process document need to duplicate
14:52:51 <fantasai> ... things like safety and sustained interruption are covered in CoC
14:53:03 <fantasai> ... If there are other things, shouldn't have unacceptable defined in Process
14:53:12 <plh> q-
14:53:18 <fantasai> ... Make Code definitive place for this
14:53:34 <fantasai> plh: Give 1 minute and then switch to next topic due to time
14:53:35 <plh> ack florian
14:53:54 <fantasai> florian: Reason why is that Code of Conduct only talked about behavior that is acceptable or unacceptable. Tiptoing wrt discipline.
14:54:09 <fantasai> ... What clearly establishes disciplinary power is the Process, which gives that power to the CEO
14:54:25 <fantasai> ... CEO can delegate, but this directly gives Chair suspension power
14:54:30 <fantasai> ... Clearly needs more time to discuss
14:54:31 <plh> ack fan
14:54:37 <Ian> Ian: We should not have "unacceptable behavior" in two places. And the Code of Conduct gives Chairs powers.
14:55:29 <fantasai> fantasai: Says chairs can ask to leave, but they could refuse...
14:55:38 <fantasai> Topic: Shipping the Process
14:55:54 <fantasai> florian: I'll do a PR by next week for the issue we need one, and merge the ones we agreed
14:56:08 <fantasai> ... Besides that, if we get no further comments, are we ready for AC Review?
14:56:16 <Ian> Ian: If the Code of Conduct needs to be strengthened, let's strengthen it there instead of having text in 2 places
14:56:50 <fantasai> plh: Next AB meeting is next week... if they don't meet maybe we ask them for a CFC.
14:56:53 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/modern-tooling/issues/112
14:57:06 <fantasai> plh: I've started to track the things we need to update
14:57:12 <fantasai> ... Ian is already generating PR for the guidebook, charter refinement phase.
14:57:26 <fantasai> florian: Can we record an agreement that we think this is done, other than the pending PRs that we decided to day?
14:57:35 <fantasai> ... that this group should start AC review?
14:57:40 <fantasai> plh: I'm OK with that.
14:58:15 <fantasai> PROPOSED: With the pending PRs merged as decided here, the Process CG believes Process 2025 is ready for AC Review, barring any further issues filed before the end of the review period.
14:58:19 <fantasai> +1
14:58:28 <florian> +1
14:58:30 <brent> +1
14:58:34 <plh> +1
14:59:00 <cwilso> +1
14:59:19 <fantasai> plh: Congrats everyone for bringing the Process all the way here.
14:59:25 <fantasai> RESOLVED: With the pending PRs merged as decided here, the Process CG believes Process 2025 is ready for AC Review, barring any further issues filed before the end of the review period.
14:59:57 <fantasai> florian: Do we need a Disposition of Comments?
15:00:16 <fantasai> plh: Not hearing anything.
15:00:22 <fantasai> florian: I'll just make sure the labels are well-applied.
15:00:50 <fantasai> [discussion of who will draft the announcement]
15:01:20 <fantasai> plh: I'd like to start the AC review by the 24th of June then.
15:02:05 <fantasai> ... then AC Review would end 22nd of July
15:02:11 <fantasai> florian: Important thing is to start. :)
15:02:38 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
15:02:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
15:03:53 <fantasai> i/plh: It's a bad idea/scribe+ florian
15:04:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
15:38:21 <Ian> Ian has left #w3process
15:57:28 <brent> brent has joined #w3process
17:16:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process