04:38:32 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 04:38:36 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/12-w3process-irc 04:38:36 RRSAgent, do not leave 04:38:37 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 04:38:37 RRSAgent, make logs public 04:38:39 Meeting: Tell Us What's Wrong with the Process 04:38:39 Chair: Brent Zundel 04:38:39 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2025-breakouts/issues/13 04:38:39 Zakim has joined #w3process 04:38:40 Zakim, clear agenda 04:38:40 agenda cleared 04:38:40 Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe 04:38:41 agendum 1 added 04:38:41 Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy 04:38:41 agendum 2 added 04:38:41 Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session 04:38:42 agendum 3 added 04:38:43 Zakim, agenda+ Discussion 04:38:43 agendum 4 added 04:38:43 Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues 04:38:44 agendum 5 added 04:38:44 Zakim, agenda+ Adjourn / Use IRC command: Zakim, end meeting 04:38:44 agendum 6 added 04:38:44 breakout-bot has left #w3process 04:51:58 tantek has joined #w3process 04:52:48 nigel has joined #w3process 05:13:33 breakout-bot has joined #w3process 05:13:35 RRSAgent, do not leave 05:13:35 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 05:13:36 RRSAgent, make logs public 05:13:37 Meeting: Tell Us What's Wrong with the Process 05:13:37 Chair: Brent Zundel 05:13:37 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2025-breakouts/issues/13 05:13:37 Zakim, clear agenda 05:13:37 agenda cleared 05:13:37 Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe 05:13:38 agendum 1 added 05:13:38 Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy 05:13:38 agendum 2 added 05:13:39 Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session 05:13:40 agendum 3 added 05:13:40 Zakim, agenda+ Discussion 05:13:40 agendum 4 added 05:13:40 Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues 05:13:42 agendum 5 added 05:13:42 Zakim, agenda+ Adjourn / Use IRC command: Zakim, end meeting 05:13:42 agendum 6 added 05:13:42 breakout-bot has left #w3process 05:38:31 gendler has joined #w3process 05:39:08 mchampion has joined #w3process 05:43:08 amy has joined #w3process 05:43:09 Christineg has joined #w3process 05:46:31 Brent: we've invited you here to ask for your feedback on ways to shape the process 05:46:46 ... we are officially running this under Chatham House rules 05:47:08 .. so no attribution. please raise your hand to q. 05:47:13 ota has joined #w3process 05:47:49 if you have been involved in W3C, have some emotional attachment, and someone says something not nice about process 05:48:09 ... you may be tempted to be defensive, or say "that's the intent" or "that's not in the process" 05:48:19 ... my suggestion is we not be in that mode but rather listen 05:48:26 .. and internalize feedback in a structured way 05:49:15 ... example: support public transit. answer: thank you for the feedback and I will take it in the spirit it was mean 05:49:29 s/mean/meant 05:49:41 .. there are a lot of opinions. it's ok if brainstorming produces flatly contradictory ideas 05:49:54 .. we want all the ideas. it's ok if we don't come up with/ a coherent idea in an hour 05:49:58 ... we're not solutioning 05:50:07 ... all ideas are welcome and useful 05:50:27 ... Process doc is quite long. if you want to see it printed, it's impressively long 05:50:44 .. so we're not looking at a small slice. might be chartering. or maybe you've done member submission 05:51:04 .. if there's an unusual concern you have expereicne w/ let us know 05:51:30 .. we have 3 questions: how would you improve the process, what are proririte, are there processes you use elsewhere you'd recommend 05:51:31 ota has joined #w3process 05:51:37 .. if you have something ot say, say it. Quacker style 05:52:02 s/Quacker/Quaker 05:52:15 .... I think W3C is more mature that most orgs. not many have the level of detail and thought 05:52:35 .. that's not bad. good for us. but for source of inspriration others might be bare minimum 05:52:52 .. i don't mind it's long, as long as it says what it needs. I don't think it's in a bad state 05:53:16 .. one gripe, I put this in GH too, any change that encourage groups to feel it's ok to target a rec track spec 05:53:23 .. as permanent CR is an anti-pattern 05:53:37 .. what they're trying to do is get a spec w/ w3c logo that's not in end state 05:53:51 .. I think that's a waste of time. they're using a lot of effort. 05:54:07 .. without having the right goal in mind. there's nothing wrong with/ any rec. should be easy to update 05:54:10 present+ 05:54:11 .. make it easy to update 05:54:14 Ege5 has joined #w3process 05:54:32 koalie has joined #w3process 05:54:33 present+ Coralie 05:54:38 ... i am fine w/ the length. i'm rather new. one thing I find weird is there's no consideration on versioning 05:54:51 .. every rec goes through same process even with a small change 05:55:20 ... eg: 1.1. but efforts the same. we gave up to do small updates. then we move to only big effort. it's the same effort, all implememtions and features tested again 05:55:26 .. i find that a bit weird 05:55:40 ... just to join the 2 comments, one thing yes, and 05:55:52 .. yes and i think think there's view where it should work for everyone 05:56:03 .. that doesn't necessarily force us into these diff status for specs 05:56:18 .. but rather insist on underlying principles. PP, wide review, implementation 05:56:29 .. that's the 3 pillars. and consensus building that exists at w3c 05:56:37 .. w/out necessarily tying to a work flow that's complicated now 05:56:51 .. in that you have the ability to do things at diff version levels 05:57:07 .. you can have a rec and update a rec. it's a bit clunky w/ the levels 05:57:16 .. there are some where you can go back to a maturity level 05:57:27 .. or create another version, 1.1. or 2.0 and then start from scratch. i 05:57:43 .. it's strange to start from scratch as it's iterating from something 05:57:57 ... right now there's none of these paths are easy. could be smoothed 05:58:16 .. would be nice to have a story to enforce principles. w different ways, none of which are easy to implement 05:58:29 .. one minor point, not sure process or practice. when you do that journey 05:58:39 .. and you end up w/ something w/ short name. diff version 05:59:03 .. one thing is that it's really confusing what's most recent. latest rec or the replacement rec. there are places where the links don't work 05:59:22 ... let's not try to answer that, just gather feedback 05:59:35 ... something I've observed is that the process provides uniformity w/ WG 05:59:43 .. if you have, then you know how to do work in another 05:59:53 Ian has joined #w3process 05:59:57 ls 05:59:59 .. a lot that's the same is stuff we've all done for while. sometimes things the same 06:00:07 .. are basically the same text in charters, we use the same template 06:00:11 -> https://www.w3.org/guide/editor/versioning.html Version management in W3C Tech reports 06:00:16 .. i wonder as a big idea, not specific. there are differences 06:00:24 .. they have their own working mode, quirks 06:00:33 .. the line between what's uniform and what can vary is a knob to turn 06:00:49 ...we have comparison eg: ECMA has a different knob, 06:01:03 q+ 06:01:13 .. different place. we might copy-paste into docs. if there's stuff in charter template into process if they are uniform/ 06:01:24 .. the link to charter, process and practice are variables we can fiddle with 06:01:34 .. we should consider fiddling w/ 06:01:55 @ from ECMA did a session. ECMA standardizes stuff. W3C is trying to create a coherent platform 06:02:03 .. there 'might be reasons that there's uniformity 06:02:05 ack me 06:02:24 I received feed back by someone not able to attend. ITEF provides uniformity 06:02:38 .. that they find useful eg; page by group to find minute, documents etc 06:02:42 . .and we do not have that 06:02:45 It's not he process 06:02:54 it's a knob that could be turned 06:03:15 my CG has existed for 5 years, we're going through process of WG 06:03:28 ... from a CG i had no idea how to get a sense of how groups are doing things 06:03:38 cyns has joined #w3process 06:03:42 .. it involved going to each group and find their resources to find what parts we wanted to steal 06:04:05 .. the next step to WB has been easier as I understand the work. but it's similar thing eg: deliverables, 06:04:09 DKA has joined #w3process 06:04:11 q? 06:04:24 .. or a set of provisions. my impression is that wrt deliverable, groups have moved toward living standard 06:04:45 .. approach. and i'm not sure of the reasoning. but for our group, we felt a living standard made sense 06:04:57 .. eg: so a long standing CR. that's how we accomplish objectives 06:05:37 (a reminder if you've been involved in process to not try to respond to comments, to correct. we are looking forward to not have pushback but to bring comments) 06:05:55 On the discussion vs. uniformity, w3c used to be unform. they were the same/ 06:06:12 ... there was no policy. there's a bit in the process. it could be in it, we could turn the knob more or less 06:06:18 we have a system of tools to do work 06:06:38 ... those are manifestations of how we do the process. the process is an activity and here's how we do it 06:06:46 .. there's been a diversification of tools 06:07:04 ... not too far on a limb to say, 15 years ago w3c tooling was way better than any other SDO 06:07:20 .. today not sure i can say taht. not a critique. the world has been moving, not sure we've kept up 06:07:51 my focus is on a11y and we have discussed how to get ppl to think about it earlier 06:08:07 .. same for priv or sec. sometimes when it comes, it's too late to add a11y to it 06:08:21 .. we've been considering how to get it earlier. this come in product development too 06:08:43 .. how to get this in process, templates or like when a CG starts, that's when they need advice on a11y etc 06:08:51 q+ 06:09:09 .. not when they go to CR. not sure tools for that, but it would be useful to get TAG principles, things covered in reviews early in the process 06:09:31 to reinforce, i was gathering feedback in another group and they said it would be great to get feedback earlier 06:09:55 that was something that came up in design review in TAG. ti was a bit demoralizing 06:09:56 q? 06:10:06 .. but it would be "looks like you checked check marks" 06:10:14 ack Ian 06:10:17 it should be not just fixing bugs but it can't influence design 06:10:34 some high level design ideas. i'm doing a strategic objective on how we think . 06:10:53 .. one idea re: a comment made, for process for w3c what are core principles for how we design it 06:11:00 if pl have ideas, they can mention tthem 06:11:16 yes. but a minimal set of principles. I'd love to hear thoughts 06:11:32 .. tension between breaking into things. eg: TAG and AB vs. what a chair needs 06:11:51 .. how to modularize it. eg: how to and Guide. there's also usability etc 06:12:01 .. someone said "3 page process doc' and 06:12:12 ECMA's equivalent is @ 06:12:24 We could reduce the process in a variety of ways if that's the goal 06:12:42 .. we can have in one place, or have links. it's not just UX but it's about how things evolve 06:13:04 I'd appreciate not to read AB or chairs. I just want registry. the level of changes for recs is not there, 06:13:08 .. would have been good 06:13:21 an idea, it was mentioned charter template. i thought about registries as we'll 06:13:37 .. when we introduced registries we left some walls and let ppl figure it out 06:13:51 .. i made a template for registries. may be a concept between process and guide 06:14:16 .. of standard practice. we could specificy register and then let ppl do it and see if there was convergence 06:14:21 aki has joined #w3process 06:14:31 ... that we could turn into standard practice. fi not, then maybe dont' need it 06:14:39 .. maybe there are other candidates 06:14:57 q+ 06:14:58 Fascinating to hear themes. everything touched on here, has been touched on a in a group 06:15:03 q? 06:15:14 For a template, i learned about them from a breakout, otherwise i'd have no way to learn it 06:15:29 ack aki 06:15:31 .. it wasn't listed, you can't find it in the search engine 06:15:48 I want to take a moment to endorse this. 06:16:02 .. the thing about the process doc that we came to a conclusion on is that one thing w3c is doing is 06:16:11 .. that others are not is driving to a coherent set of goals 06:16:26 .. ECMA has short goals. we spend a year w/ the scope of a TC. 06:16:46 .. then it's up to chairs. anti completive rules, notes etc. it's not driving toward a single coherent platform or goal 06:16:54 .. doesn't need level of detail 06:17:08 .. when it's at ECMA it goes to GA, they say it makes sense and publish it 06:17:25 .. as imperfect as it might be, W3C process doc, it does provide guidance 06:17:33 .. ECMA's guide is 500 pages 06:17:51 To riff on something you said, we work at diff companies w/ diff processes 06:18:00 .. about jointing or protesting about a group 06:18:18 .. one bit of feedback i get is that ppl want to see crisp scope. they often don't care about anything else 06:18:39 .. that' s hurdle, scope. so it's not like everything can be defined. maybe that's all a charter needs 06:18:54 I love this idea. what's interesting is scope. a yes and 06:19:09 .. it's interesting you talk about scope. we thought CG would be easy 06:19:27 .. .eg: Incubator CG we thought one big group so no one had to ask lawyers and it's just one big group 06:19:46 .. strong relationship between docs. has diff IPR, more tolerable ethan WG 06:19:58 .. some anti pattern. if we thought of a super group mentality 06:20:06 .. w3c had 5 supergroups. rechartering could go away 06:20:18 .. that super group has scope they can do whatever. no recharter 06:20:29 .. would a super group w/ well defined scope, could go on 06:20:33 What would SG be? 06:20:45 How's that different than a domain? 06:21:03 I'm thinking of scope IPR friction. i don't have specific topics. that would be highly politic 06:21:11 WebApps thinks its doing that 06:21:17 So does CSS 06:21:27 s/webapps/webappsec 06:21:27 You could combine cSS and SVG 06:21:33 Those are interesting ideas 06:21:48 I have direct exp w/ a group in the EU broadcasting system 06:21:57 .. smart media, distrirubiton and spectrum 06:22:12 ... one thing it does is creates a place where you need someone in charge 06:22:23 .. what that person does is entirely vague. they don't do anytihing. 06:22:53 .. it's a gathering place. a reporting mechanism. someone who wants alignment. but they can't bc they are dependant o chairs underneath 06:23:07 .. if you do that, you need a really clear reason why. and really think out what's the reason to create a SG 06:23:25 .. and what do you want to get out. how do you expect ppl to get out of it 06:23:44 For stable areas you might use it. but for new areas, might offer oppruntiy 06:23:50 s/EU broadcasting system/European Broadcasting Union 06:23:57 This is interesting. i spit standards time here and ITEF. they've done this 06:24:11 .. structure is we have diff areas. real time, security. i only pay attention to a few 06:24:26 .. one person over area. and assist chair and group. 06:24:43 .. another thought is there's a need for a group have scope. to say what working on 06:24:57 .. w3c has a tightly constrained timeline. good and bad. hopefully helps ppl get work done 06:25:24 .. but does it? it needs a siituatoin where HR ppl can't do it, and then i'm slammed, but can't get to it 06:25:44 .. if no end point but scope of work. that takes care of it. if you get review, have to change things in HR 06:25:53 .. takes away fear of review 06:26:10 Maybe why CG take time and give to WG. bc CG doesn't have deadline 06:26:21 Do most groups feel that pressure. CSS WG we have to recharter 06:26:35 .. everyone assumes of course ewe'll recharter. do others feel it? 06:26:52 I'v never thought charter end date was other than date. deliverables are aspirational 06:27:03 The sound of them whooshing by 06:27:08 The groups i've been in felt they did matter 06:27:16 Context dependent 06:27:51 Talks w/ ppl that the charter end date is a forcing function and as members are heavily deadline dependent or they might put it off 06:28:11 Had a session today, and a thought about encouraging engagement 06:28:24 .. from hearing from ppl we don't hear from much. it occurred to me that one thing i've done a lot of 06:28:33 .. around here that isn't high on my list is FOs 06:28:46 .. i've sat on a lot of council. I've thought a FO means something bad happened. 06:28:58 .. a way to measure badness. the more here, the worse things are going 06:29:19 .. in some way it's a measure of engagement and care. one way to measure i we're being provocative enough 06:29:32 .. no objection, are e doing anyting? 06:29:47 Ways to define consensus. some require unanmity 06:30:05 .. others are positive endorsement required. if you ask, at least one person has to say yes 06:30:10 .. a more positive spin 06:30:22 What we have currently is a mix. we do need active support and everyone needs to live w/ it 06:30:31 A majority in saying yes, no one saying no 06:30:38 or substantial amount saying yes 06:30:51 I want to insist on rechartering could be something we can streamline 06:31:00 .. the scope does not change. something time consuming for everyone 06:31:13 .. group chairs dont' want to do it. they have other priorities would rather progress the group 06:31:20 .. team contacts dont want to do it, it's tedious 06:31:30 .. take sa lot of time for HR, and Comm team to send to AC 06:31:52 .. i think it bothers the AC bc they don't vote. sometime for rechartering the companies in the groups don't even vote 06:32:12 .. probably signals something very formal for something expected, for something that they'll get to the end of might not be good 06:32:20 present+ Paola_DiMaio 06:32:29 Useful to have principles ot see if we can optimize principles. 06:32:48 .. eg: SG reduces charter need. it would stabilize. eg: CSS if it were a SG might be more patent exclusions. 06:33:01 .. if not really, then good. that's one area. another one migh the specs themselves 06:33:29 .. .eg: web assembly, a11y review it and say "its so low level we don't need to review" 06:33:52 .. not limiting ability, optimizing and WebAssembly keep going and HR ppl put more time into things that deserve it 06:34:03 .. what's the reality. then if WebAssembly says they might go to REc 06:34:15 ... they might and then we don't have to fake it. the process works 06:34:28 Comment was made that sticking in CR is an anti pattern 06:34:32 .. trying to leverage that 06:34:50 .. there are interesting ways to be principle based and more flexible e 06:35:01 Fascinated by idea of optimizing HR. we have change classes, substantive or informative 06:35:11 .. we could have change class which are a11y or sec impacting. 06:35:36 .. or some assessment to change spec, someone like Team contact, if adding user interface. before complete, let's just check in 06:35:51 .. on a small scale, the HR group has a minimum thing to review 06:35:59 .. at the end they'll have seen things. do it as we go along 06:36:09 I've seen that work in product dev. checkpoints for adding new features 06:36:31 .. where aspects like UI would trigger a11y or sec review. and would flag ppl who can do it 06:36:42 .. doing it smaller makes it better. reduces load of HR> and make more effective 06:36:52 .. helps train ppl working on spec on things they need to work on 06:37:06 .. and ppl who have been doing it, start to learn, might need a threat model 06:37:27 .. not just big scary ppl will tell me where i'm wrong. and finding ways to trigger on additions vs. big gates in a process 06:37:42 We may not need process updates to drive this. to find workflow s 06:37:50 Where does HR fit? 06:38:01 It has to happen but does not outline how 06:38:13 Lot of ppl assume HR is a laucnh gate and not something early 06:38:40 Observation: we've talked about optimizing or skipping HR. but when i talk to others at other SDOs 06:38:56 .. the thing we do w/ HR is the single distinguishing characteristic 06:39:09 .. some maybe dont' bring work here but some like it 06:39:20 Not talking about removing 06:39:20 Careful how tinker 06:39:39 I hear if cookie cutter process, find optimization. we want to keep principles 06:40:01 Review is too light. it's impact, it's all that not just saying good enough 06:40:21 Process embraces this, whether we do in practice or not. we can already and many charters encourage that behavior 06:40:29 .. its interesting to figure out why 06:40:44 Seems ppl don't know how to start or who to ask. seems a notification goes out at some gate 06:40:58 ... vs. pinging ARiA or a template which makes it easier and more visible 06:41:06 .. lots of ppl don't know how to do this stuff 06:41:20 I remember on the TAG ppl would want to hook into design review tracker 06:41:28 .. bc it was a way to find out when ppl were looking for review 06:41:50 .. each group had their own way to do it . felt like a hack. a more uniform entry point migh mean 06:42:06 Potential standard practice 06:42:11 More kick off than review 06:42:18 An invitation to dialogue 06:42:20 RRSAGENT, make minutes 06:42:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/12-w3process-minutes.html Ian 06:42:43 .. last minute curve-ball, process doc defines a lot of things. 06:42:45 .. we've been talking about our work to get a doc along maturation process 06:42:55 .. there's ton of other stuff there. kitchen sink doc of governance. defines AC 06:43:12 .. we asked how to improve AC participation. maybe we can redefine AC. look at table of contents 06:43:27 .. all sorts of stuff in there. don't hesitate to tell us. we're open to zany ideas 06:43:36 In the Process CG 06:43:38 It's a CG for a reason 06:43:55 We need usage data to figure out how used and order it that way :) 06:44:07 Thank you all so much 06:44:15 RRSAGENT, make minutes 06:44:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/12-w3process-minutes.html Ian 06:44:23 We are one process reform away from not having an AC 06:44:35 There are tons of things in there we take as fixed and immutable 06:44:50 One group asked why we have CR, why REC. i said none are natural laws 06:44:56 ... they happen that way bc we make them that way 06:45:11 rrsagent, make minutes 06:45:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/12-w3process-minutes.html amy 06:46:36 koalie has left #w3process 06:52:17 brentz has joined #w3process 06:52:27 Core7745 has joined #w3process 06:53:26 brentz has joined #w3process 06:56:05 brent has joined #w3process 06:57:50 nigel has joined #w3process 06:58:12 nigel has joined #w3process 07:07:24 nigel has joined #w3process 07:07:45 nigel has joined #w3process 07:23:02 brentz has joined #w3process 07:23:49 Core8123 has joined #w3process 07:25:43 Core2833 has joined #w3process 07:28:34 brent has joined #w3process 07:30:04 Core4183 has joined #w3process 07:36:36 brent has joined #w3process 07:43:39 RRSAgent, bye 07:43:39 I see no action items