13:53:57 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 13:54:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-irc 13:54:28 zakim, start meeting 13:54:28 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:54:29 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group 13:54:43 Chair: Brent Zundel 13:55:21 Date: 2026-05-13 14:01:59 present+ 14:02:01 present+ Francois 14:02:03 present+ Brent 14:02:06 regrets+ Florian 14:03:28 TallTed has joined #w3process 14:05:06 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2026May/0000.html 14:05:51 Topic: Agenda+ things 14:06:03 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1151 14:06:14 Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1151 14:06:57 +1 to the proposed change in 1151 14:07:05 Brent: +1 to the change 14:07:19 [No objections to merging this] 14:07:28 RESOLVED: Merge pull request #1151 14:07:46 Topic: WG Adjustments Issue generation party 14:08:31 Brent: The AC discussed process; the AB continued the conversation 14:08:42 hober has joined #w3process 14:08:46 regrets+ 14:08:53 ...at a high level, the AB supports changes and for the Process CG to write some proposals 14:09:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 14:09:35 Brent: "Let many issues bloom" was my sense of the AB 14:09:56 present+ 14:09:58 Brent: The main pain points to address: 14:10:01 - rechartering 14:10:10 - timelines and relationship to horizontal review 14:10:12 - maintenance 14:10:30 scribe+ 14:11:08 Ian: I'm curious if IPR boundaries of groups have come up as a pain point to address. Like 9 deliverables in this group, but 2 of them I'm not happy with. 14:11:36 Brent: IT's come up as a consideration but not a pain point 14:12:23 Tess: The AB has not identified that consideration as a priority pain point 14:12:44 Brent: ideas welcome! 14:13:28 Tess: One common refrain from Kobe discussions - a lot of WGs view the timelines for deliverables to be fiction 14:14:05 ...smaller number of groups valued timelines as a forcing function 14:14:59 ...in AB discussion, we discussed other relevant dates related to a charter that are not surfaced (e.g., work is happening under some external time frame) 14:15:10 ...or another SDO wants to refer to a W3C doc 14:15:26 q+ 14:15:38 ack me 14:16:15 * IPR scope 14:16:19 * Resource allocation 14:16:23 * Project management 14:16:40 * Operations (decision making, meetings, ec.) 14:17:53 Random ideas previously mentioned: 14:17:59 * Persistent groups (CSS) 14:18:06 * Lower staff resources for mature groups 14:18:12 * Dashboards and operational efficiencies 14:18:34 * Super groups 14:19:37 brent has joined #w3process 14:19:54 Ian: Could some of these things be captured differently, in a way that would be more persistent and not tied to rechartering for example? 14:20:12 q? 14:20:16 q+ 14:20:32 ack hober 14:20:32 q+ 14:20:51 hobert: This is exactly the kind of list we're hoping to make and open a bunch of issues that will lead to brainstorming 14:20:55 s/hobert/hobert 14:20:57 s/hobert/hober 14:21:20 hober: Regarding IPR scope...can we get away with not listing deliverables? 14:21:46 ...when the IPR scope is clear 14:22:14 ...we have an idea that scope and list of deliverables are orthogonal but they are not as separate as we may think. 14:22:54 ...css transitions and animations is an interesting case; prior to these, CSS has no time component 14:23:11 ...it would have been reasonable at the time as "out of scope" for CSS 14:23:46 ...we didn't change the wording of the css scope when we added those deliverables. There are just differences in scope interpretations 14:24:09 q+ 14:24:44 Ian: How will companies deal with large groups without lists of deliverables? 14:25:03 Hober: We would need to get crisper on scope, and likely have explicitly an out of scope section. 14:25:32 ack me 14:25:32 ack br 14:26:07 brent: I think your example is an argument for separating scope and deliverables. Most companies care more about the deliverables more than the scope. 14:26:46 ...I'm going to push back on the resource/staffing aspect of this. I don't think people on the team look at end dates in practice to reallocate staff. 14:27:40 q+ 14:27:47 ...I think people are not, in practice, thinking about charter end dates seriously in terms of staff reallocation 14:28:30 ...I don't think there should be special rules for some groups v. other groups. 14:28:37 q+ 14:28:40 ack tidoust 14:29:21 tidoust: CSS WG is pretty easy to recharter since the scope doesn't really change and we have tools to regenerate deliverables list. 14:29:39 ...whereas the non-super-groups are the ones where rechartering is more complex. 14:30:24 ...regarding staff allocation, I agree with Brent we don't look at the future. We find a way to make it work. 14:30:27 q? 14:30:31 ack hober 14:31:41 hober: The way that the team contact is listed is serving multiple functions. (1) names someone (2) fractional FTE...that helps with knowing whom to contact, knowing who is accountable. I think the fractional FTE is more internal to the team, even if a bit useful to Membership 14:31:54 ...but we don't pay close attention to how the team chooses to allocate its time 14:32:56 ...I think the primary thing that's important to a Member (IMO) is accountability 14:33:21 ...regarding supergroup discussions: we should not enshrine a difference between types of groups (agreeing with Brent) 14:33:34 ...we need to acknowledge that there are patterns, however. 14:33:47 ...some groups are long-lived and amorphous (e.g., css, web apps) 14:34:20 ...some groups have debates around deliverables...we see differences but we should not enshrine RULE differences. 14:34:29 ...I would hope we can "apply some of the exceptions" to everyone 14:34:37 ...or we should take it away across the board 14:34:59 ack me 14:35:39 q+ to suggest an issue - no more charter expiration 14:37:03 Ian: Another topic of interest "hanging around at CR" should not be perceived as a bug. 14:37:44 Tess: In recent meetings we talked about requirements to advance from CR to REC would be outside the group's responsibility; the ecosystem around the group does the work and we observe interop 14:37:56 q+ to respond to Tess 14:38:06 ...the trick to doing that at W3C would be shifting how / when horz reviews happens 14:38:30 brent 14:38:32 ack brent 14:38:32 brent, you wanted to suggest an issue - no more charter expiration and to respond to Tess 14:39:08 brent: Regarding the parallels with the IETF: 14:39:45 - if we think of a Rec at W3C as a things that's reached a fixed point, won't change without pain, and there has been some wide review.....at the IETF an RFC meets those qualifications 14:39:52 - whereas a CR can change relatively easily 14:40:45 Brent: I was going to open an issue to consider removing charter end dates. 14:40:47 q+ 14:40:58 q+ 14:41:04 q+ 14:41:06 ack me 14:43:00 Ian: Can we first write a project document to ground a future set of issues? 14:43:40 Hober: We also need to clearly indicate to people when brainstorming is happening and that our goal is to surface pros and cons 14:43:52 q? 14:43:54 ack hober 14:44:07 Hober: But not sure we need an explainer first. 14:44:12 q+ to say maybe an email to the AC would be enough? 14:44:32 Hober: What I would commit to is that we are earnestly considering a set of pros/cons 14:45:22 ..it's good to know where the third rails lie 14:46:31 ...one thing that I like about groups when rechartering is kicking out members and making them think explicitly about rejoining 14:46:45 q+ 14:46:49 q+ to say maybe it's membership in the group that expires, rather than the group itself 14:46:52 ack tidoust 14:47:46 tidoust: Good comments. We've been focusing on the content of the charters. Removing end date removes rechartering issue. But if we don't remove it, we should also look at simplifying the rechartering friction 14:48:02 q? 14:48:03 ack brent 14:48:03 brent, you wanted to say maybe an email to the AC would be enough? and to say maybe it's membership in the group that expires, rather than the group itself 14:48:38 brent: I think a framing communication via email to the AC could suffice 14:48:45 Hober: +1 14:48:47 q? 14:48:52 brent: Another topic is IEs. 14:49:44 ...what if it's not groups that expire but membership in groups that expires? 14:49:49 q+ 14:50:04 ack Ian 14:50:04 ack me 14:51:59 Ian: Many useful things captured here. Maybe in the end, an email would be the right thing to do. But articulating what a charter today incorporates, what rechartering today encompasses, both positive and negative. We want to thoughtfully re-imagine. Two steps: draft, then share with the AC to gather feedback. And then you can move forward. 14:51:59 ack hober 14:53:08 hober: Regarding membership in groups expiring .... interesting idea. But there's a coupling between the moment when the list of deliverables changes and the membership renewing its IPR commitment. If we decouple kicking out members from IPR considerations, we might create more busywork for members 14:53:47 ..if the scope of a group changes infrequently, but we kick members out, say, every 2 years, then 2 of the 3 times you are kicked out it's just forcing you to push a button, which may be more annoying. 14:54:11 ...right now, being kicked out is a signal that something important has happened (IPR scope changed) 14:54:51 ..so maybe the coupling is IPR scope changes / kick out. That's a valuable coupling but may be smaller granularity than the whole charter changing 14:55:49 ...in a world where WG responsibility is to get to CR...we might end up with a new stable place where we recharter groups for shorter periods then spin them down, but we'd need a new way to do maintenance. 14:57:56 hober: We need to be clear about what we're committing to ... and then come up with structures that best serve that 14:58:57 q? 14:59:02 RRSAGENT, make minutes 14:59:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-minutes.html Ian 15:00:45 Action: Ian to work with Brent on a framing narrative 15:01:21 RRSAGENT, make minutes 15:01:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-minutes.html Ian 15:01:28 RRSAGENT, set logs public 16:01:57 hober has joined #w3process 16:01:57 TallTed has joined #w3process 16:01:57 hdv has joined #w3process 16:01:57 cwilso has joined #w3process 16:01:57 jyasskin has joined #w3process 16:01:57 timeless has joined #w3process 16:01:57 wendyreid has joined #w3process 16:01:57 Mek has joined #w3process 16:01:57 plinss has joined #w3process 16:01:57 astearns has joined #w3process 16:03:12 hober has joined #w3process 16:03:12 TallTed has joined #w3process 16:03:12 hdv has joined #w3process 16:03:12 cwilso has joined #w3process 16:03:12 jyasskin has joined #w3process 16:03:12 timeless has joined #w3process 16:03:12 wendyreid has joined #w3process 16:03:12 Mek has joined #w3process 16:03:12 plinss has joined #w3process 16:03:12 astearns has joined #w3process 16:05:13 hober has joined #w3process 16:05:13 TallTed has joined #w3process 16:05:13 hdv has joined #w3process 16:05:13 cwilso has joined #w3process 16:05:13 jyasskin has joined #w3process 16:05:13 timeless has joined #w3process 16:05:13 wendyreid has joined #w3process 16:05:13 Mek has joined #w3process 16:05:13 plinss has joined #w3process 16:05:13 astearns has joined #w3process 16:06:56 hober has joined #w3process 16:06:56 TallTed has joined #w3process 16:06:56 hdv has joined #w3process 16:06:56 cwilso has joined #w3process 16:06:56 jyasskin has joined #w3process 16:06:56 timeless has joined #w3process 16:06:56 wendyreid has joined #w3process 16:06:56 Mek has joined #w3process 16:06:56 plinss has joined #w3process 16:06:56 astearns has joined #w3process 17:05:33 Zakim has left #w3process 17:07:41 i/+1 to the proposed change in 1151/scribe+ Ian 17:07:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 17:11:45 s/- rechartering/... - rechartering/ 17:11:45 s/- timelines and relationship to horizontal review/... - timelines and relationship to horizontal review/ 17:11:45 s/- maintenance/... - maintenance/ 17:13:08 s/- if we think of a Rec at W3C as a things that's reached a fixed point/... - if we think of a Rec at W3C as a things that's reached a fixed point/ 17:13:08 s/- whereas a CR can change relatively easily/... - whereas a CR can change relatively easily/ 17:15:35 s/* IPR scope/... * IPR scope/ 17:15:35 s/* Resource allocation/... * Resource allocation/ 17:15:35 s/* Project management/... * Project management/ 17:15:35 s/* Operations (decision making, meetings, ec.)/... * Operations (decision making, meetings, etc.)/ 17:15:36 s/Random ideas previously mentioned:/... Random ideas previously mentioned:/ 17:15:36 s/* Persistent groups (CSS)/... * Persistent groups (CSS)/ 17:15:38 s/* Lower staff resources for mature groups/... * Lower staff resources for mature groups/ 17:15:40 s/* Dashboards and operational efficiencies/... * Dashboards and operational efficiencies/ 17:15:42 s/* Super groups/... * Super groups/ 17:15:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-minutes.html TallTed 18:46:01 rrsagent, bye 18:46:01 I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-actions.rdf : 18:46:01 ACTION: Ian to work with Brent on a framing narrative [1] 18:46:01 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-w3process-irc#T15-00-45