Meeting minutes
Update on AB Process Refactoring
Brent: One bit of feedback we received is "make it easier to find what we're looking for"
… and the accessibility folks have some good ideas.
… we heard (during TPAC) a lot related to horizontal reviews.
… updating recommendations part of the process is not well-understood (or if understood, not well-liked)
Florian: I have an idea on how to improve "the specs are a mess"
… writing diffs is hard. Tools could help, but not sure if it's generally do-able (or may need AI)
(Some discussion about whether people know the options for doing revisions)
Ian: can we hear the big themes? From what I heard so far (and would add my own thoughts):
* Horz reviews
* Maintenance
* Rechartering
* Usability of materails
Ian: Now is a good time to develop a plan, prioritize for 2026
Florian: Regarding "going back to CR" there are challenges for some groups (e.g., CSS) but if there's not a challenge with changing status, going back to CR is often the right solution
Francois: Some feedback I have heard about proposed amendments is that they did not understand the different implications between staying at Rec and going back to CR.
(Brent continues reviewing main themes)
Brent: Some challenges around Formal Objections. In some cases it feels like input (FO) is coming in too late.
… can be frustrating to get feedback just before a deadline from people who have not been involved in work.
… it's also difficult to track the process of handling Formal Objections
Brent: Another theme is rechartering. People ask "why are we doing this every two years."
Ian: I think that's a great topic to revisit, e.g., building on the example of the CSS WG, which is a "super" group, which might be a direction to look into.
… Staff resource allocation is another thing to look at, perhaps.
… We could envision that once work has been ongoing for some time, you get a "free pass" to continue the work
… Just ideas.
Brent: We did hear some other pain points about rechartering, but the Process has improved since those events. The AB does not think much will need to be done around recharerting.
Brent: There are some smaller bits on IE, CoC, registries (but not concentrated feedback on this topic)
Florian: CR drafts are partly for morality --> Going back to WD is possible but feels like a regression.
Brent: The plan moving forward for the AB: we have a FTF meeting in early February. Refactoring will be an important part of that agenda.
… Tess has taken the lead on the refactoring work item
… I am working on this as well.
… we are hoping to identify and make resolutions on low-hanging fruit.
… the AB is looking for some easy wins.
… there seem to be places where tooling changes would be very helpful (e.g., horz reviews, FO handling)
Florian: Would you consider submitting feedback to the team? They might have other ideas (e.g., more tooling) than changes to the Process.
Brent: The AB plans to do this:
* Write down problem statements
* Offer suggestions from the AB's perspective as input to: the process CG, the Team
Ian: Will the AB "shut down" some topics or say "We heard some feedback but don't think it's a priority"
Brent: My hope is that by the end of the Feb FTF meeting we have a solid list of problem statements.
… and ideally a couple of ideas for how to solve them.
Brent: I want to see solutions emerge from a dialog
florian: Sounds great. Please do share the problem statements even if you don't have suggestions for addressing them.
<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to mention breakouts day
Ian: Breakouts Day might be a way for the AB to get feedback on problem statements.
Process PRs
https://github.com/w3c/process/pulls
w3c/process#937
<brent> Github: w3c/
Florian: There was a recent discussion that did not yet converge. I think there is going to be a survey to gather more information.
… let's postpone this one.
Brent: Yes, Board and AB are looking at this.
w3c/process#1021
<brent> Github: w3c/
Ian: Given recent work to help the community understand the respective roles of the Board and AB, I think we should revisit this text and leverage the recent efforts to clarify roles.
<brent> +1
w3c/process#1129
<brent> Github: w3c/
Florian: PSIG is discussing this and has not yet converged. But one note is that prior to 2019 there was no formal rule about what to do regarding non-Member contributions , and the PP FAQ explained that it's the responsibility of a WG Chair to do the right thing. In 2019 a formal rule was introduced but the PP FAQ was not updated.
Brent: My first reaction is that the PSIG should update the FAQ
Ian: Two areas of concern for me include (1) where rules should reside [IMO, should not be in the process] and (2) who has responsibilities (e.g., Chairs v. Team)
Brent: Since PSIG is discussion, let's await their findings.
Propose to close items
w3c/process#328
<brent> Github: w3c/
Brent: TAG and AB are invited to review charters.
… especially if there are Formal Objections
… so it feels this issue has been superseded by events and can be closed.
Florian: +1 to closing. (And the other two as well)
Florian: I think there were multiple meanings to "formally review"; only one meaning has been addressed (but others not pushed forward)
(No objections to closing 328)
w3c/process#414
<brent> Github: w3c/
Ian: Is there a stronger characterization that "WG for things that get implemented" while "IG are for other things, such as guidelines"?
Ian: I am ok to close this issue
(No objections to closing 414)