IRC log of w3process on 2025-11-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

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