Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
07 Oct 2013

<trackbot> Date: 07 October 2013

agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/ab/2013OctDec/0030.html

<koaliie> Previous (2013-09-30)

<scribe> scribe: Coralie

<scribe> scribenick: koalie

Working with the Public, like we said we would

[jump to the rest of this discussion]

SteveZ: how much of a big deal is it to set up a different IRC channel to separate Process from AB meeting?

Ralph: Not a huge deal, but we need to consider the bots

<Ralph> trackbot, associate this channel with #w3process

<trackbot> Associated this channel with #w3process.

Are we ready to recommend to the AB that we are ready to distribute to the AC

[jump to the rest of this discussion]

SteveZ: Jeff, with a few exceptions, I think it's ready to be reviewed in AB meeting next Monday

Jeff: I noticed that some issues were raised in the past week

SteveZ: I think that chaals responded to all of them

Jeff: issue-40 is closed?

SteveZ: I think so

chaals: I agree it's ready for AB review

Ralph: I agree too

Review updated ED and pending issues

chaals: There are 7 issues pending review

<chaals> issues pending review

issue-15?

<trackbot> issue-15 -- Definition of substantive changes -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/15

SteveZ: I have one editorial suggestion. The definition of 'substantive change' is buried between bullet points, I'd suggest to pull out that paragraph and referencing it

SteveZ: any objection?

chaals: I strongly agree.

<Ralph> no objection

<chaals> RESOLUTION: take the definition of "substantive change" out of the middle of a point, and let it stand alone.

<chaals> RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-15

<chaals> close issue-15

<trackbot> Closed issue-15.

RESOLUTION: editorial change for issue-15 to pull out the parapraph which defines "substantive change" and reference it

Jeff: I have to leave in a few minutes, I'd like to discuss issue-40

issue-40?

<trackbot> issue-40 -- Make Working Draft a single state and describe the transitions -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/40

Jeff: I was OK to update the chart diagram if it represents maturity levels
... not the process
... It still makes sense to me. How do we resolve this?

SteveZ: I'm not sure I understand

<Ralph> [could someone remind us why FPWD was dropped as a state, please]

<chaals> [Because Jeff requested losing the name heartbeat, and my interpretation of the consensus of the AB on how to do that was that they wanted a single "Working Draft" state, which had different ways to get there depending on whether there had been a first one]

<chaals> […from the last AB face to face meeting]

Mike: The argument is that those are part of the transition into the WD state

SteveZ: How about moving the diagram to the section on maturity levels?

Jeff: I'd be happy if we left the diagram as it is but labelling the incoming arrow in a way that is descriptive

Mike: I like this idea.

chaals: Works for me.

<jeff> bye, regrets for rest of the meeting.

<jeff> enjoy!

RESOLUTION: Label the left arrow of the diagram in a descriptive manner

<scribe> ACTION: chaals to label left arrow in the diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/07-ab-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Label left arrow in the diagram [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-10-14].

<inserted> Mike: There are transition requirements for patent policy on the arrows too

SteveZ: Looking at Ian's comment that chaals responded to, don't re-state the Patent Policy

chaals: Or be clear that this document doesn't make Patent requirements

Mike: I understand and agree.

issue-40?

<trackbot> issue-40 -- Make Working Draft a single state and describe the transitions -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/40

SteveZ: I believe with that action issue-40 is closed

<chaals> close issue-40

<trackbot> Closed issue-40.

RESOLUTION: Close issue-40 with action-12

<Ralph> issue-26?

<trackbot> issue-26 -- Requirements for interoperability - Two independant implementations -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/26

<chaals> SteveZ: Had a comment on the draft version

<chaals> Chaals: Yep. Unless someone screams your new proposed text will be in the next draft. (already noted in email)

<chaals> SteveZ: OK, so I believe that closes the issue

SteveZ: and put a URL to my notes

<chaals> Steve's suggestion re issue 26

RESOLUTION: Close issue-26

<chaals> close issue-26

<trackbot> Closed issue-26.

issue-27?

<trackbot> issue-27 -- Call for Review of a PR by the Director without implementations -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/27

SteveZ: This is closed I believe

Chaals: Yes.

SteveZ: "should justify them"
... I'm OK to close issue-27
... any objection?

[none]

RESOLUTION: Close issue-27

close issue-27

<trackbot> Closed issue-27.

issue-41?

<trackbot> issue-41 -- Remove the "Review of corrections" process? -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/41

issue-42?

<trackbot> issue-42 -- Accurate and clear references to the Patent Policy -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/42

issue-43?

<trackbot> issue-43 -- Does publishing an edited Recommendation require meeting all "state transition" requirements? -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/43

SteveZ: Are people OK to close issues 41, 42 and 43?

Chaals: I clarified that the general requirements explicitly apply to edited Rec, so any redundancies are editorial errors and should be cleaned up

SteveZ: It is part of what Ian was asking for

<Ralph> no objections from me

SteveZ: any objection to closing 41, 42 and 43?

[none]

RESOLUTION: Close issue-41, issue-42, issue-43

close issue-41

<trackbot> Closed issue-41.

close issue-42

<trackbot> Closed issue-42.

close issue-43

<trackbot> Closed issue-43.

Are we ready to recommend to the AB that we are ready to distribute to the AC [Cont.]

SteveZ: I'd recommend the draft chaals prepares this week should go to the AB for approval to send to the AC. any objection?

<Ralph> +1 to sending next editor's draft to AB for review

chaals: none from me

SteveZ: There are only issue-39 and issue-2 and issue-3 which are open
... we're waiting for text from Ralph on issue-39
... and the others are related to /TR and we don't need to deal with those
... no issue to assign at the moment.

RESOLUTION: The draft chaals prepares this week should go to the AB for approval to send to the AC

Working with the Public, like we said we would [cont.]

SteveZ: I suggested earlier that we create a #process IRC channel
... and whenever we're doing process work we do it in that channel
... be that during AB meetings of this TF meetings
... that allows up to associate the tracker and get rid of having to keep two trackers going at the same time

Ralph: I misunderstood the import of your question earlier
... operationally, changing channels during a meeting can be awkward and may lead to mistakes

chaals: There is some value to simplifying the discussion in the public so I'd like to have a #w3process channel
... I'm inclined to use the #process channel

<Ralph> +1 to #w3process

chaals: Mike said he wanted to use a different public group
... I asked the PSIG and they weren't sure the topic was open to public discussion

Mike: On using the CG, participants have to sign an agreement to participate in the discussion
... the Patent Policy is a finely crafted tool and using it in CG just because it's convenient is odd to our lawyers
... I'd rather do it in a regular public ML
... This is my objection for the last time.
... By the way, is the AB magically subscribed to that alias now?

SteveZ: No, we agreed we can no do that.

Ralph: There are 3 distinct questions, I'm confused which combination of them we're talking about
... there is the chap7 meeting
... which channel is best to keep the records of this meeting on?
... I'd support to moving that to #w3process
... only because the tracker is associated already
... and the record of these meetings can be public.
... Another question is the one Mike raised
... whether this conversation is within the auspices of the CG
... and I didn't think there were any more question on that
... the third question is, when the full AB meeting takes place, should that meeting use a combination of one channel or more?
... I'd support conducting this meeting on a different channel, but that's different from whether this is a CG meeting

SteveZ: I was asking about this meeting (process TF), a TF of the AB, so not a CG meeting
... although we agreed we would do our work using the mechanisms of the process CG
... but not taking over the process CG
... I would say that continuing in that form solves Mike's problem, and it largely solves chaals' problem
... as it provides a venue to work that doesn't require signing the CG agreement
... That's item 2.
... Item 3: Tantek suggested that the process revisions should be done in public
... that portion of the AB meetings
... it was just a suggestion

chaals: I'd like to have the discussion of this Task Force on #w3process
... I want to have a formal rule for sharing the TF minutes with the public

chaals: I agree that the AB using the infrastructure of the CG doesn't imply that the AB is taking over the CG, or handing its decision responsibility to the CG.
... We should leave the question of the AB using #w3process to the AB.
... But I don't think that the AB's decision on whether it puts the proposal to the AC needs to be held in public - although it would be good manners to forward the Resolution of the proposal.
... If there is a need to look at some process issue, that should be punted to this task force (which solves the transparency issue)...

<Ralph> Re: Making process discussions more open... [Tantek 28-Sep]

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to reply on Tantek's request

Ralph: I support chaals' request to have the discussion and decision on how to use irc next Monday

SteveZ: to chaals' point, I'm happy with a standing rule that says that unless there is objection to publishing minutes 24hrs after they've been sent out, they will go public
... and if there is an objection the chair will have to rule.
... chaals, does that respond to your questions?

Ralph: The minutes of this TF?

SteveZ: Yes

Chaals: WFM
... and we expect Coralie to make this meeting's minutes public at this point
... Do we send the agenda to the CG?

SteveZ: ... And if CG members want to call in, they can

Mike: I'm happy to be as transparent as possible.

RESOLUTION: This TF agenda will go to CG process ML, and the minutes will be made public 24 hrs after they've been sent out unless there are objections.

SteveZ: Anything else for this meeting?

Ralph: Thanks chaals for editor's work

SteveZ: Yes, thanks chaals
... I'd like to meet again a week after the AB meeting on 14-Oct to talk about "what beyond after chapter 7 can we do"
... We can cancel the TF meeting on 21-Oct, or do supergroups.

chaals: I'd like to wait till I hear back from the AB about supergroups.

SteveZ: meeting closed.