14:02:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:02:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/22-w3process-irc
14:02:39 <Brent> zakim, start the meeting
14:02:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:41 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:02:47 <Brent> chair: Brent
14:03:06 <hober> present+
14:03:40 <Brent> present+
14:06:06 <tidoust> present+
14:06:17 <plh> present+
14:06:31 <TallTed> present+
14:07:12 <hober> scribe: hober
14:08:02 <Brent> Topic: Propose to Close
14:08:11 <Brent> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22Proposed%20to%20close%22
14:08:31 <hober> Brent: let's see if anyone left a comment after these were marked 'propose to close'
14:08:40 <hober> .. 1033, no comments
14:08:46 <hober> .. 414, no comments
14:09:13 <hober> .. 409, has comments, from florian & TallTed
14:09:37 <hober> TallTed: every group type that exists should be covered in the process.
14:10:11 <hober> .. i don't have any particular thought about what to say about them. sketch in my comment: "these group types aren't discussed more here, because they're defined elsewhere. we may define them here in the future"
14:10:25 <plh> q+
14:10:28 <hober> Brent: another option, we could incorporate the BG/CG process document by reference
14:10:45 <hober> .. maybe someone knows the historical context
14:10:45 <hober> ack plh
14:11:12 <hober> plh: CGs were created so anyone coming to us with an idea can quickly form a community around it without going through any kind of vetting process.
14:11:36 <hober> .. very minimialist; some have resisted adding it to the process because it could become more heavyweight over time
14:11:47 <hober> .. Ian and Dom are working on revising this
14:12:03 <hober> .. any attempts at making CGs more complicated would face resistance
14:12:15 <hober> .. that's why it's not in the process doc today
14:12:20 <Brent> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/409
14:12:31 <hober> Brent: i don't think we should add anything to this process that isn't in the CG process
14:12:35 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/409
14:12:49 <hober> plh: maybe we could say "if you have a new idea, go make/join a CG"
14:13:03 <hober> .. BGs aren't used as much these days
14:13:11 <hober> q?
14:13:44 <hober> tidoust: the process introduction mentions BGs and CGs
14:13:55 <hober> .. it may be worth having something about incubation in general
14:14:11 <hober> .. i wouldn't want the process to start describing how CGs operate
14:14:20 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/328
14:14:32 <hober> Brent: i don't think anyone here wants to make anything more complex
14:14:35 <hober> ... 328, no comments
14:14:50 <hober> .. after this call, we're going to close 1033, 414, and 328
14:15:13 <hober> plh: re: 328, tooling should create an issue in the AB-memberonly repo whenever a charter goes out for review
14:15:27 <hober> .. haven't fixed it because the AB hasn't left many comments
14:15:42 <hober> .. if the AB wants to reconsider that, just let me know
14:15:45 <hober> Brent: okay
14:16:13 <hober> .. opening an issue on the AB github repository probably wouldn't result in action; our work more isn't very github-centric
14:16:31 <Brent> Topic: Agenda+
14:17:09 <hober> Brent: anybody at any time can add 'agenda+' to any issue or PR
14:17:32 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/442
14:17:37 <hober> .. only thing we have on agenda+ is issue 442
14:18:01 <hober> .. "Need a Policy for Submission Requests"
14:18:08 <hober> .. any comments?
14:18:16 <hober> .. was proposed to transfer this issue at some point
14:18:31 <hober> plh: was raised during AC review of the process doc in 2020
14:19:03 <hober> .. this issue was raised before member submissions got simplified
14:19:25 <hober> .. they're rare, so fantasai suggested we could move this to the guide
14:20:59 <hober> .. the team can reject a submission because it's harmful to the web
14:21:14 <hober> .. issue raised in 2020 was that the team held this power exclusively
14:21:34 <hober> .. but these days we've published principles as statements
14:21:38 <hober> .. the team is bound by those
14:21:45 <hober> .. so i don't think there's any action needed here
14:21:53 <hober> Brent: okay, let's add 'propose to close' to this one
14:21:56 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/guide/process/member-submission.html Member submissions
14:22:02 <hober> .. and we'll close after the call
14:22:36 <hober> plh: i don't believe the team has rejected any member submissions in quite some time. this is a hypothetical concern.
14:22:43 <Brent> topic: Issue Triage
14:23:07 <Brent> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc
14:23:21 <hober> Brent: LRU order for triage
14:23:50 <hober> .. is there something for this group to do? if so, do we have the info we need? if not, should this be transferred elsewhere or closed?
14:23:56 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1007
14:24:02 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1007
14:24:18 <hober> Brent: raised during 2020 AC review
14:24:42 <hober> s/Brent: raised during 2020 AC review/raised on March 26th/
14:24:58 <hober> .. single comment, from something cwilso raised elsewhere
14:25:15 <hober> .. many references to this from other discussions
14:25:22 <hober> .. 3 merged PRs related to this
14:25:26 <hober> .. maybe we can close
14:25:58 <hober> plh: i don't think we have such a thing in the process
14:26:06 <hober> hober: it's part of the AB/TAG discipline work
14:26:23 <hober> Brent: all of the related issues were merged into a single branch
14:26:43 <hober> .. my suggestion is that it's already labeled with the branch, so it's already triaged
14:26:50 <hober> hober: that works for me
14:27:06 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/553
14:27:19 <Brent> Github: 
14:27:26 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/553
14:28:06 <hober> Brent: raised in 2021; no comments since then
14:28:10 <hober> .. no activity since
14:28:17 <hober> .. is this still an issue?
14:28:30 <hober> plh: this hasn't crossed my radar much
14:28:37 <hober> .. no group came to me to say this was unclear
14:28:45 <hober> .. that said, the issue is useful
14:28:53 <hober> .. some iteration is possible here
14:29:01 <hober> .. maybe resulting in changes to the Guide
14:29:09 <hober> .. hopefully no process changes would be required
14:29:29 <hober> hober: so should we transfer this to the guide?
14:29:33 <hober> plh: not yet
14:29:57 <hober> .. alan's numbered list in the issue should be added to the guidance for moving things to cr snapshot
14:30:02 <hober> Brent: that's a good idea
14:30:11 <hober> plh: it could go into the "transition guidance" document
14:30:57 <hober> .. which no one reads :(
14:31:17 <hober> .. ylafon and i try to catch these sorts of things
14:31:28 <hober> .. i've assigned the issue to myself
14:31:41 <hober> Brent: okay, let's transfer the issue
14:32:15 <hober> .. done
14:32:47 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/554
14:32:50 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/554
14:33:10 <hober> Brent: raised by mnot 4 years ago
14:33:20 <hober> .. editorial suggestion
14:33:31 <hober> .. conversation died down 4 years ago
14:33:40 <hober> .. sounds in line with the refactoring we want to do anyway
14:33:58 <hober> .. also happy to close; we may not need to track it
14:34:23 <hober> hober: i'd prefer to keep it open
14:34:32 <hober> Brent: i could create a 'refactoring' label
14:34:37 <hober> hober: okay!
14:35:05 <hober> plh: previous editor chose to keep the current organization, so this is unlikely to change until new editor in place
14:35:15 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/589
14:35:20 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/589
14:35:40 <hober> Brent: raised by manu
14:35:54 <hober> .. says the "revising a recommendation" process is painful
14:35:56 <hober> .. this is true
14:35:58 <hober> plh: indeed
14:36:11 <hober> Brent: this is in line with the kind of feedback we're looking to gather at tpac
14:36:22 <hober> hober: let's add your new label to it
14:36:34 <hober> plh: should this be marked as a priority item?
14:36:45 <hober> Brent: we're waiting on the AB to tell us what our priorities are
14:37:02 <hober> .. the triage point is that it's possible this is useful, so we should keep it open
14:38:28 <hober> plh: this is a hot issue. devices & sensors and webapps are going back and forth on this re: their joint deliverables
14:38:45 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/561
14:38:49 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/561
14:39:17 <hober> Brent: should the process CG exist?
14:39:42 <hober> .. florian and i have been doing some triage. anything that says "needs ab feedback", we think about if we should transfer it
14:39:52 <hober> .. that label was added 4 years ago
14:40:02 <hober> .. has that feedback even been received
14:41:01 <hober> hober: okay to transfer this to the AB
14:41:10 <hober> Brent: it's the AB's decision to make anyway
14:41:15 <hober> .. let's transfer it
14:41:34 <hober> .. will transfer it to AB-public if that's okay
14:41:48 <hober> plh: sounds good to me
14:41:59 <hober> .. thinking on this has evolved since the label got added
14:42:19 <hober> .. +1 to transferring it
14:42:31 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/555
14:42:35 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/555
14:42:50 <hober> Brent: editorial issue raised by mnot back in 2021
14:43:10 <hober> plh: did we change this in the recent process?
14:43:34 <hober> tidoust: the sentence is still there
14:43:47 <hober> plh: it's still an issue
14:43:56 <hober> .. we should at least drop the second half of the sentence
14:44:01 <hober> Brent: okay, let's keep it open
14:44:32 <hober> plh: we have the vision, so it should be easy to update the text
14:44:38 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/604
14:44:44 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/604
14:45:15 <hober> Brent: raised by cwilso in 2022 from a suggestion from tantek
14:45:29 <hober> .. lively conversation back then
14:45:42 <hober> .. a couple of years later, thought was that we need feedback from the AB
14:45:57 <hober> .. should we close, transfer, or leave it open?
14:46:59 <hober> hober: i think the underlying problem is real. we should transfer it to the AB
14:47:16 <hober> plh: not sure transfering is the best approach
14:47:23 <hober> .. in practice, this hasn't been an issue
14:47:34 <hober> .. no one's used an AC appeal in a long time
14:47:45 <hober> .. if it gets moved to the AB, it'll stay open
14:47:54 <hober> .. i guess i don't mind parking the issue with the AB
14:48:35 <hober> Brent: any objections to transferring?
14:48:44 <hober> .. hearing none, transferred
14:49:11 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/597
14:49:17 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/597
14:50:13 <hober> hober: i'm quite sympathetic to the issue as raised
14:50:19 <hober> Brent: sounds like it should remain open
14:50:35 <hober> .. is the registries guidance in the process sufficient
14:51:33 <plh> hober: not sure if the issue should be transferred to the AB as part of overall
14:51:51 <hober> hober: this issue is a symptom of the larger AB issue re: interoperabilty
14:51:57 <hober> .. dunno if we should transfer or keep open ourselves
14:52:05 <hober> plh: also a registry issue in fedid
14:52:19 <hober> .. how many requirements should be put on registries
14:52:32 <hober> .. we shouldn't be surprised if registry issues come back to us
14:54:01 <hober> hober: maybe we need a "3 Is" label for this one
14:54:09 <hober> plh: agreed
14:54:25 <hober> Brent: we'll create a new label and keep this issue
14:55:29 <hober> .. the VCWG hasn't created a registry
14:55:57 <hober> .. i'm happy that the work was able to continue and successfully result in 2.0
14:56:15 <Brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/625
14:56:19 <Brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/625
14:58:06 <plh> hober: reminded of the difficulties around resolving objections in HTML. their interpretation of weakest was not a measure of forcefulness, it was a measure of harm.
14:58:22 <plh> ... I'm inclined to say it's an issue, and update the text
14:59:03 <hober> Brent: next meeting was scheduled for duing tpac, so we won't be meeting then
14:59:20 <hober> plh: there will be a chairs' breakfast thursday morning at tpac
14:59:28 <hober> .. we will encourage them to give feedback on the process
15:06:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/22-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
15:08:44 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
15:08:45 <TallTed> i|Topic: Propose to Close|agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/22a219df-1882-4759-ba84-fd0b4ade9f21/20251022T100000/ |
15:08:45 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-w3process-minutes.html
15:08:45 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/12-w3process-minutes.html
15:09:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/22-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
15:10:03 <github-bot> github-bot has joined #w3process
16:40:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
17:50:16 <dbaron> dbaron has left #w3process