Regrets: toml, wendy
sam: following up on formal objection to PING charter. The group refuses to have a phone call. Sam will keep working on it
Christine: we continue w/ current charter then?
sam: yep!
Christine: (as background) PING has been around for a while, we’ve submitted a charter change, its been formally opposed
pes: exisitng charter has been extended to Sept?
sam: yep
JNovak: How does w3c process work? If they dont want to talk about the objection, what happens next?
sam: will try over email instead of phone call. If they still don’t reply, director will decide what to do with the objection. No action needed from PING in general, just the contact person (i.e. sam)
Link to document: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/review-drafts/2019-06/
Christine: we received privacy review request for DOM standard, as part of horizontal review. pes will do the initial review, but will have top to bottom notes for the next call. pes would appeciate a second set of eyes too. There is, for example, no privacy considerations section.
pes: for DOM standard: initial suggestion was to ask folks to fill out the security/priv considerations section - what is response?
sam: provided links to issue (https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/776, https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/777)
pes: i will join into conversation on these issues as well
Link to document https://github.com/w3cping/administrivia/pull/20/files
sam: there were objections to this, that it was PING trying to make process changes. We should make the changes through process CG
pes: is there a better place for PING to write suggested process changes?
sam: would be better to highlight that its proposed / suggested as is, and that PING realizes they need to go through processs CG before they have teeth.
jason: PING does need to engage w/ process CG to change process; whats the way forward? TPAC convo?
sam: emails and issues? there is an existing issue about it, no need to do face to face, async is fine
npdoty: there was conversation on the mailing list about tom’s doc, but there is also convo in the PRs (and I actually think the comments are similar in direction)
sam: maybe best to move the conversation elsewhere, or at least broken out
jason: is this the mega thread? https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130
pes: will figure out a way to get action going on the above thread, see if we can turn it into action. I think TPAC is a great idea.
sam: Here are some links showing how the i18n activity is managing their review queue and comment tracking: https://www.w3.org/International/review-request https://www.w3.org/International/reviews/projReview.html#scheduling
Review Radar: https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/projects/1 Issues list: https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues Review comment tracker: https://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/reviews/
pes: how many issues are open currently? Rougly?
jason: Apologies, have to drop. (pes: ✌️)
sam: ~30 a year or so
npdoty: these are issues they open, not per review
npdoty: this seems useful, better than static markdown. if we can remember to do it, seems like a useful view.
pes: yes, seems useful, we should work out some action items. I will create a parallel version from PING issues (for tracking issues) • npd: +1
sam: we may need a new repo
sam: we have a w3c/ping repo also - we could use for tracking?
pes: will create a repo for tracking issues, and create tracking issues for as many issues as he can think of (and then will hurrang others to create tracking issues too)
npd: I think i18n has one issue for each document to review, and that gets tracked in the project boards with the high-level status, and then one tracking issue for each issue that gets opened elsewhere, so they can see from the issue view what might need to be followed up on.
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/participants https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/ (pes: thanks!)
pes: suggest to not invite people to ping, and approach this as a new proposal for HR in general, and not PING specifically
christine: ack
npd: there could be an unconference session at TPAC, and I bet lots of people would be interested, but I also think email/github as an ongoing discussion will be important.
sam: we could ask ralph to org, but PING should take initiative. There is also a process call. Lets open an issue and join a call
pes: i will create issue for the above, and then we can request to get on agenda
pes: there are still open issues for getUserMedia and font enumeration issues on the font standard. Please join the conversation there: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4055
christine: TPAC unconfernece sesssion about revisting existing standards for privacy?
pes: sounds good
christine: chairs can disucss and suggest specific times / dates / org
christine: next call on 29th of August