14:53:58 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 14:54:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-irc 14:54:18 zakim, start meeting 14:54:18 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:54:20 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group 14:57:44 chair: Brent Zundel 15:01:59 present+ Ian, Francois, Brent, Florian, DingWei 15:02:52 scribe: Ian 15:03:19 TallTed has joined #w3process 15:03:48 Topic: PRs 15:03:49 https://github.com/w3c/process/pulls 15:04:28 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1129 15:04:34 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1129 15:05:01 Dingwei2 has joined #w3process 15:05:16 Florian: The core is probably not being disputed. I think we should converge on text to bring to PSIG. 15:05:54 ACTION: Florian to create a draft that he feels best represents consensus of the thread to present to PSIG 15:06:02 present+ 15:06:11 present TallTed 15:06:37 q+ 15:07:29 TallTed: I think we should emphasize "secure" rather than "request"; ok for that to be another pull request 15:07:39 ack TallTed 15:07:48 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021 15:07:53 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021 15:09:16 Brent: I believe we have acted on comments people have made and the text as currently in the PR reflects feedback from the AB and elsewhere 15:10:30 scribe+ 15:10:51 q+ 15:11:06 Ian: I remain slightly concerned that the mission statements for the AB and Board of Directors are not sufficiently separated. 15:11:28 ... To a person who is not well-versed in the inner workings of W3C, this appears as if there's overlap. 15:11:48 ... "Guidance to the Team", for example. I understand it's different. 15:12:01 Brent: There has been tweaking about this. 15:12:28 ... Also related to the comment "Do not define yourselves in relation with the Board". 15:12:37 ... Guidance to the Team was something that arose during these tweaks. 15:12:43 Ian: Thanks for hearing my comments! 15:12:53 q+ 15:12:54 ack Fl 15:13:21 looking at https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021/files , there are two open comments from ChrisN 15:13:25 florian: I think the nature of the powers between Board and AB are sufficiently different that even if there is overlap, the topics will be handled in different ways. 15:13:30 ack TallTed 15:13:32 q+ 15:13:47 TallTed: There are two open comments from ChrisN 15:15:16 Brent: I will respond to both open comments to indicate that I believe the text is responsive and to let the group know if the comments have been addressed. 15:15:18 ack me 15:15:19 ack Ian 15:17:08 Florian: Do we think the AB should give the final ok? 15:17:17 Brent: The AB has been invited multiple times to review and some have. 15:17:59 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/937 15:18:03 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/937 15:22:28 ACTION: Ian to endeavor to secure the list of w3c members with non-AC rep member reps (to support AB and Board conversation) 15:22:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-minutes.html Ian 15:23:22 Florian: if the answer to the question is "it's fine, let's just merge these" then please read the draft text in the pull request. 15:23:54 Topic: Process Issues 15:24:10 https://github.com/w3c/process/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc 15:24:38 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/694 15:24:42 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/694 15:25:59 Florian: There's a proposal to give choice to people which length term they want. There's no consensus after 4 years for a change. 15:26:52 ...but there's another question: what does "got most support" in STV ranking algorithm 15:27:12 ...so this is an open question; maybe we know maybe we don't know who has the most support. But this should be a separate issue. 15:27:57 ...within a given round there is no ranking 15:29:28 TallTed;I think STV yields a full order after the last round 15:30:13 Florian: Suggest to close current issue. For the subplot, it's probably ok but we can open a new issue if it turns out not to be 15:32:58 Ian: Looking at the result of an STV election. Which is what I'm familiar with. It shows candidates being thrown out. There's no ranking. I'm not exactly sure what got used in my example though. 15:33:14 ... In this example, only one elected person per round. 15:33:35 Florian: David had proposed an order in the issue. With the goal of being explicit on one order. 15:35:19 Ian: Looking at another recent example. There does seem to be some numbers available in the last round. 15:35:37 ... In the end, I'm hearing that there is no problem. 15:35:41 Brent: Anyone opposed to closing this issue? 15:35:44 [No opposition] 15:35:54 RESOLVED: Close issue 694 15:36:14 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/689 15:36:18 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/689 15:36:54 Florian: It's true now (and might have been true 4 years ago) that people who have been on the AC have access to ac-forum for lifetime (given the policy of ac-forum). Should this be the case for TAG and Board as well? 15:36:59 q+ 15:37:39 Florian:...I think it would be useful to have these people who have served the consortium share perspectives. And I don't see why it would not be AB-only. 15:37:50 ack brent 15:37:50 ack Brent 15:39:34 Brent: While I agree that should it continue for the AB it should be extended to the TAG + Board, there is also a risk that some voices of long-time participants may be thought to carry more weight. 15:41:54 Brent: Another concern under the current policy that might be aggravated by inviting more people is that we don't have adequate moderation. 15:41:59 q? 15:42:51 Florian: Removing AB might remove a smaller set of people than imagined because many on the AB have also been AC reps 15:44:10 Brent: is this a decision of the process CG? 15:45:05 Florian: I think the existing access has been granted via advice to the Team from the AB. But the Proc Doc defines w3c-ac-forum and could also expand who has access. 15:46:25 Florian: The Process does not mention the list by name, but mandates two communication channels. 15:47:10 Ian: Another option. Have a narrow list as mandated by the Process. I don't know if that's useful. 15:47:57 ... Taking the point that the Process document could expand the forum to the elected boards, alumni, etc. 15:49:02 Florian: ac-forum is Member-only and if you are not part of a Member Agreement, is this a risk of just being subscribed to a list not under NDA? I don't know if we do this for the moment and we probably should (even if not pressing) 15:49:20 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697 15:49:25 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697 15:49:33 Brent: Should we have term limits? 15:50:35 q+ 15:51:07 Florian: If we have a shallow pool and have term limits we run the risk of not filling seats 15:51:09 ack Tall 15:51:10 ack TallTed 15:52:04 TallTed: I think term limits may be useful in some contexts but I think in general they are a blunt instrument that don't necessarily do what we hope they do. So I would not encode them firmly. 15:52:07 q+ 15:52:14 ack tidoust 15:53:18 tidoust: Florian makes some points on the thread that suggest this approach would not lead to significant change 15:53:26 https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697#issuecomment-2677479218 15:54:45 Brent: I'm hearing in this room that the answer is pretty strongly "no" 15:55:04 ...the question I have related to this is: where else should this conversation be happening? 15:55:19 q+ 15:55:27 ack Ian 15:56:00 Ian: Two topics: incumbent bias, and pool of people for the elections. 15:56:22 ... Bigger problem is having a rich supply of people who runs for elections. 15:57:14 ... If that discussion is not happening, that should be a good discussion to have. 15:57:30 Brent: The AB has been discussing "development" 16:00:05 Ian: No objection to closing 697, but I think the conversation about nurturing people to participate in elections should continue. 16:00:29 Florian: I think we should ask the person who raised the issue if they are ok closing the issue. 16:00:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-minutes.html Ian 16:00:59 Brent: Will mark as "proposed to close" 16:01:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-minutes.html Ian 16:04:41 present+ 16:04:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 17:05:11 tantek has joined #w3process 18:29:25 Zakim has left #w3process