See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 November 2014
<inserted> scribe: mchampion
Steve sent out call for consensus on TAG membership issue
<chaals> close action-39
<trackbot> Closed action-39.
<chaals> close action-42
<trackbot> Closed action-42.
issue 129 - Steve emailing Judy, who is OK with simplifying coordination group language
There are 4 differences - duration, explicit deliverables, membership criteria, ground rules for termination
Phil Archer's group on data does have a coordination group ("W3C Data Activity"). So a coordination group could be thought of as an IG with a restricted attendance policy
We could just add some language in the process document about escalation path for coordination issues
Charles notes that the requirement for groups to talk to each other is already there. Adding informal ideal about how to escalate doesn't seem necessary
Steve notes that the main path of escalation is a formal objection, which is overkill
Summarizes -Charles argues that the formal objection mechanism is all that is needed in the process, further detail is unhelpful
<SteveZ> mchampion: are the differences identified are important enough to distinguish CGs from IGS?
Mike asks whether anyone on the call believes the difference between IGs and coord groups is worth preserving both in the process
Charles replies that the difference doesn't justify having both.
Steve - IGs aren't the answer but CGs are not needed. Judy wants to run this by her group and get back after 12/3. We can wait until then
Conclusion - we're leaning toward removing coordination groups and not adding anything else to the process document
<SteveZ> Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date<http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140>
<trackbot> Notes added to Issue-140 The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date.
<chaals> [assignments to COO/W3C Chair are ISSUE-145 (currently not open)]
Steve - sole roles assigned to COO or Chair that need to be moved, let's not lose that material when simplifying 2.2
Charles asks Steve for counterporposal text
Steve - will identify material and write proposal
Steve - the other item is that both the Director and COO/Chair can delegate int he current document, only the Director can delegate in Charles' draft
Charles - referring to the CEO instead of Chair or COO seems a logical choice, but it's not clear we need to
Steve - Everything goes back to the Director anyway, so it's covered
<scribe> ACTION: Steve will confirm that all MUSTS about the team would be covered by delegating from Director [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-w3process-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Will confirm that all musts about the team would be covered by delegating from director [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-12-02].
Jeff - agrees we should replace non-existent chair with CEO, dont need to talk about COO
Actions ordinarily assigned to Chair should be documented, e.g. when Jeff became CEO there was a question whether he should become chair of the AB. Similarly there is a question of who chairs the AC meetings
Charles - it's a relatively small amount of text to keep, I can live with it
Steve - Agrees with Jeff, those bits of text are useful
Jeff - I don't feel strongly that it would make it a MUST.
Steve - OK with "ordinarily"
Steve ask Jeff whether those are the only 2 places where the CEO should be mentioned?
Jeff - not proposing any new mentions of chair, coo, or ceo. As long as we make replacements or thoughtful removals, ok
Conclusion - We will change all references from Chair to CE), and preserve instance that have a clear role such as chairing the AC and AB meetings
We can change status of 140 to Pending Review. No objections
<SteveZ> Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review<http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144>
<trackbot> Notes added to Issue-144 Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review.
Charles objected to "Director can consider whether wide review was part of the evaluations" Not clear what the issue was
Charels- Doesn't feel that proposed change adds any value
Steve- Just want to encourage people to do it sooner rather than later
Charles doesn't want to die on this hill... neither does Steve ...
Josh - easiest thing to do would be ask some chairs what would be good enough to satisfy their concerns about the new process
Josh - as someone who does wide review, problem seems to be when WGs don't make progress on the points made in the review
Steve - this is part of the performance of the process, hard to put rules about how to perform well in the process
Steve - asks Charles to put points 1, 2, and 4 in the document
Steve - no more formal agenda topics
The Sam Ruby discussion on how he would like to do joint work with WHATWG is on the table. Does anyone see a process issue?
Jeff - What we're doing here is propose process modifications that would be too late to help Sam, Team needs to answer Sam. Anne has also asked some questions the team needs to answer. We can address process issues later
Steve - Summary is that nobody has identified process issues with Sam's proposal
Jeff - Other proposals on the thread may require process changes, but we can't assess all of them now
<inserted> Josh - we should send a note welcoming feedback from them for a future version of the process document
<inserted> SteveZ: +1
Charles - issues 100 and 93 were raised in response to issues left over from process 2014, we said we would address them in 2015
Steve - 93 seems like it's bigger than a 2015 issue
<timeless> scribe: timeless
issue-93?
<trackbot> issue-93 -- What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/93
issue-100?
<trackbot> issue-100 -- Should it be possible to publish a pr before a call for exclusion ends -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/100
SteveZ: i think we might be able to solve issue-100
chaals: it's technically feasible
if you get everything perfect
... to get into PR while there's an exclusion open
... i think it's possible to get through PR
SteveZ: i don't think so
jeff: could we not resolve these on this call, just open them?
SteveZ: i will move those two to OPEN
<chaals> open issue-100
[ Adjourned ]
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/taking up/Topic:/ Succeeded: s/Topic: issue 140/Topic: ISSUE-140/ Succeeded: s/(currently not open)/(currently not open)]/ Succeeded: s/soe roles/sole roles/ Succeeded: s/1,/1, / Succeeded: s/-asks/- asks/ Succeeded: s/DOes/Does/ Succeeded: i/100 and 93 were raised/Josh - we should send a note welcoming feedback from them for a future version of the process document Succeeded: i/100 and 93 were raised/SteveZ: +1 Succeeded: i/100 and 93 were raised/Topic: Promised issues raised in AB and transferred here Succeeded: s/AB and transferred here/AC review of Process document 2014/ Succeeded: i/Steve, the answer is No/scribe: mchampion Succeeded: s/Steve, the answer is No// Succeeded: s|Error finding 'items'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/users>.|| Succeeded: i/Action items: Steve/Topic: Review of Action Items Succeeded: s/Action items: Steve/Steve/ Succeeded: s/termination group/coordination group ("W3C Data Activity")/ Succeeded: s/issue-145/ISSUE-145/ FAILED: s/issue-145/ISSUE-145/ Succeeded: s|s/issue-145/ISSUE-145/|| Succeeded: i/The Sam Ruby discussion/Topic: Sam Ruby's discussion on URL spec Succeeded: s/Topic: Issue-/Topic: ISSUE-/ Succeeded: s/... chaals ?// Succeeded: s/... who should be the assignee?// Succeeded: s/+1.416.440.aaaa, // Succeeded: s/[IPcaller], // Found Scribe: mchampion Inferring ScribeNick: mchampion Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Scribes: mchampion, timeless ScribeNicks: mchampion, timeless Default Present: SteveZ, chaals, Mike_Champion, Jeff, timeless Present: SteveZ chaals Mike_Champion Jeff timeless Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0158.html Found Date: 25 Nov 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: steve WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]