Meeting minutes
Agenda+
w3c/process#698
<brent> Github: w3c/
Brent: The AB has resolved to be transparent about election results, and the TAG will go along with the AB
Ian: I help the Solid CG run this type of election
Brent: Anonymization is of voter, not candidate.
Ian: Ah.
Ian: Does this mean proc doc change?
Brent: Yes, I think so.
TallTed: It needs to be clear that no info is released until all votes are in.
Brent: Any concerns from those here today about this proposal?
(No concerns heard)
Brent: So this will lead to a change in the election section of the process document for the TAG and AB
Francois: We'll also need to update the Guide as well, which has details on running elections.
Pull requests
w3c/process#1021
<brent> Github: w3c/
Ian: I still have concerns about confusion with the Board because it is the role of the Board to provide guidance on issues of strategy, management, legal.
Brent: I don't think it's inappropriate for the AB to comment on those topics as well (e.g., "tooling would be helpful here")
Francois: The current PR text doesn't shock me.
… note also that there is a difference between "corporate strategy" and "technology strategy"
Brent: And AB is participating in strategic initiatives.
Brent: Because the AB is more vocal and active, it's important to have mission guidance.
Ian: Friendly amendment. "On technical matters" would distinguish between the AB and the Board.
… Maybe "issues that arise in the course described in this Process document".
… but that could be too narrow. E.g., Process does not include community groups
Ian: How about: "..ongoing guidance to the Team on issues that arise during the course of community activities regarding strategy, ...."
(We look at "Has responsibility for the Process Document")
Ian: +1 to has responsibility
<tidoust> +1
TallTed: My sense is that the word choice debate is about "too much power" or "too little power."
Brent: Section 10 makes clear how the AB manages the process document
Ian: Let's hear on the thread if people support "has responsibility for"
propose to close issues
w3c/process#1033
<brent> Github: w3c/
Ian: I'm hearing the premise ("short term ok") was challenged but there's no consensus on how to change it. Can we close it?
Brent: I think closing it makes sense.
Francois: +1 to close
TallTed: +1 to close
Brent: And Florian supports closing it
Ian: It appears we already agreed to close :) => Process CG agreed to close during the 2025-10-08 meeting.
Brent: That was the pull request; this is the issue
next meeting
Brent: Normally scheduled for 11 Feb. Ian has sent regrets
… I will poll people to see.