AB Agenda Wiki Feb2020
See also: Logistics Page
Day 1 - Tuesday, 25 February Chairs for the Day - cwilso and fantasai
|Chairs for the Day: Chris and Fantasai||Presenter|
|9:30-10:00||Website redesign. Vendor selection and update on plan [slides]||Coralie|
|10:20-11:20||Process 2020. Get an update on [P2020], changes since the last discussion, update on the CfC of the W3C
Process CG. Discuss explainer and other materials to be transmitted to AC and review schedule. W3M has consensus to send this to the AC. Hopefully by the time of this meeting this proposal will have received consensus from the Process CG as well.
The related topic of CEPC changes which are linked into the process and the patent policy revisions are covered later in the meeting.
Proposed resolution. The AB approves the draft of Process 2020 and asks that the AB Chair, the Process CG Chair, and the Editor forward the document for AC review, on a date TBD.
|David, Florian, and Fantasai|
|11:40-12:40||Process 2021. Preliminary discussion. Process evolution
Chair has raised question about the best venue for the Process 2021 discussion. In the ProcessCG? In the AB? Some other venue?
Underneath this question is the question of how we get the right level of participation. The Process CG chair has been disappointed in the level of participation of AB Members in the process as well as the lack of much participation of the community at large. We can also begin to assemble what we think are the key process issues for 2021. [Registries] appears to be a major unsettled issue from P2020; Are we ready for "director-free"? Are we better off doing a quick catch-up/bug fix for Process 2021 and then have a monolithic focus on "director-free" for Process 2022? Included in this is whether we should just [streamline] the process document. We should also discuss the issues that [need AB feedback].
|Jeff and David|
|1:50-2:40||Process 2021 continued.|
|3:00-4:00||Director-free, technical directors, etc. What is the right model?
The W3C Advisory Board has been making some progress towards outlining how W3C can work without a Director once Tim steps down as Director. However in [Issue #360 ] (as well as some related issues) senior non-AB W3C stakeholders have expressed some skepticism or at least asked that we perform due diligence on what other standards organizations do. See also [Issue #316] and [Issue #331]
This time slot is chosen to optimize for CET, ET, PT, and Australia.
The objective is to ensure that we find a path forward that has consensus - rather than going too deep on a particular path and discovering that it lacks consensus in the end.
|Jeff, Mike Champion, Tantek Çelik, Mark Nottingham, Daniel Dardailler|
|4:20-5:20||Director-free continued. Since we have been exploring director-free for over a year and we've had a discussion about whether it is the right model in the previous hour, we should see if we are ready for a Call for Consensus that director-free is the right model.||Jeff|
Day 2 - Wednesday, 26 February Chairs for the Day - dsinger and Tzviya
|Chairs for the day: David and Tzviya||Presenter|
|9:00-10:00||Legal entity [jurisdiction.]
We had resolved in our [November meeting] that resolution January 16 as deadline for this discussion, willing to reopen if significant new information arises. So we should see whether we can close this issue.
Some of the relevant background information includes:
Eric will begin the discussion with his analysis of where we are.
|10:20-11:20||Revise W3C Patent Policy. Get an update on proposed new patent policy. Discuss explainer and other materials to be transmitted to AC and review schedule. Hopefully by the time of this meeting this proposal will have received consensus from the PSIG and W3M.
Proposed resolution: The AB approves the draft of the Patent Policy and asks that the AB Chair, the PSIG Chair, and the W3C Counsel forward the document for AC review.
|Wendy and Don Deutsch|
|11:40-12:40||Legal entity update: General update on a range of topics: Fundraising, Introduction of Endowed programs, staffing of CFO position, usage of discretionary funds, operations. If there is time, we might discuss several related issues:||Jeff|
|1:40-2:40||Legal entity [who is authorized to update bylaws]: This was a controversial topic on our 16 January call; needs more discussion||Wendy
Review of substantial proposed changes proposed by the PWE CG. This document has received consensus from the CG and W3M. Discuss explainer and other materials to be transmitted to AC and review schedule.
Proposed resolution: The AB approves the draft of CEPC and asks that the AB Chair, the PWE Chairs, and the Editor forward the document for AC review.
|4:20-5:20||May 2020 AB/AC meeting. Update and discussion on the upcoming (?) meeting|
Day 3 - Thursday, 27 February Chairs for the Day - cwilso and fantasai
|Chairs for the day: Chris and Fantasai||Presenter|
Member Relations and Member Retention: Review Member Relations Function with a focus on at-risk members and W3C's procedures. Advice from AB.
|10:20-11:20||[2020 Priorities:] Report on progress for key projects. Project owners should update the wiki prior to the meeting.||All|
|11:40-12:40||Tooling. Improving existing tooling and building more: what is the system team doing, and what else can they do||Vivien|
|1:40-2:40||AB Role. [Tension between "expressing one's opinion" and being on the AB:] We all
have many roles. We need to express opinions as individuals, as participants, AC reps, chairs, etc. On the one hand, being on the AB should not cause a restriction about what we say. Yet when we talk, it is perceived by others as having great weight. How do we balance those and ensure that all of our remarks build engagement with W3C - while still providing the critical feedback that is necessary? Do we need to write a guide or discuss best practices?
|3:00-5:20||AoB. This AB meeting is heavily scheduled and this agendum leaves some time for more free-flowing discussion. One of the key items we did not get on the agenda is: issues in the [private] and [member-only] repositories, so if we have nothing else to discuss, we could triage and discuss some additional issues.
We need to discuss upcoming calls (next week).