Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference
28 Oct 2013

<Ralph> previous 21-Oct

<inserted> scribenick: Ralph

Issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle

issue-39?

<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

SteveZ: Wayne Carr's mail from 2 weeks ago was the last comment I'm aware of

<SteveZ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/0048.html

Jeff: I'd also like to discuss the plan for TPAC to be sure we don't miss the opportunity to communicate what we're doing and give the TPAC participants time to learn about what's going on

SteveZ: Mike proposed a simpler version from Ralph's
... but did not have a forcing function
... Wayne added an 18-month deadline

SteveZ: that seems controversial; in our previous discussions there was no support for a deadline

<inserted> scribenick: SteveZ

Ralph: deadlines can be arbitrary
... would groups like CSS be confused by having docs in parallel in different processes?
... how would groups feel about the process change?

<inserted> scribenick: Ralph

Ralph: [asks Steve for his perspective on what the CSS WG is likely to prefer]

[Coralie joins]

<koalie> scribenick: koalie

SteveZ: Groups mumble about the difficulty of creating a document
... basic undertone to the extisting process
... Trying to figure out which process any given document is following where there is a large number of document seems deadly
... I'm not sure whether everybody in the WG would agree
... Editors object to what doesn't bring the document forward
... your concern is accurate, but having the group delay it actually makes things worse overall

Ralph: I specifically asked your impression for what would work for the group
... You say the CSS WG would @@2

SteveZ: Yes
... Chaals is in the other group that would have a large number of documents to convert. [chaals sent regrets for today]

Mike: If HTML isn't done in a year, serious questions will be asked
... I understand the point; David Singer made a point on the AC forum, if we told forget about LC, that would be a bad thing. I understand David's point.
... Forcing people concerns me
... Let's set a deadline that is far enough in the future
... For others, let's encourage everybody to move ahead.
... Remember the Director can always make exceptions.

Jeff: I have raised issue-39, and shared concern if a group were driving all of their effort towards LC, and all of a sudden they were told that there is no LC; instead they need to drive to LCCR and demonstrate wide review - something that they had never planned on doing before getting to LC.
... We would benefit by having a couple of breakout at TPAC to talk about the process
... issue-39 could be a disctinct breakout

issue-39?

<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

Jeff: We don't have to decide today

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to react to and agree with Mike

Ralph: There's a lot of merit to the proposal
... I generally agree with Mike's assertion
... Groups should want to switch to new process as early as possible if we did things right
... I'm very reluctant to impose that as a top-down directive
... I'm speculating on circumstances, but even in Wayne's proposal, I could imagine a WG @@3
... I would like to hear more perspective from WG chairs on adoption window
... And discuss in a breakout, for example, why they would adopt or not in a short amount of time.

SteveZ: The main reason it's useful to have this discussion is to send a strawman to chairs with what we're thinking and some of the alternatives
... so they can discuss in their groups before TPAC
... I'd be happy with a short list and a few questions, such as
... "how would you WG feel about converting?" "how would you feel about a deadline?"

Ralph: I'd be happy to draft a message to Chairs with a more general question "What would prevent you to adopt in [timeframes]?"

<Ralph> Ralph: what barriers would interfere with your adopting in [6], [12], [18] months? What enticements would encourage you to adopt this in [6], [12] months?

SteveZ: A lot of persons do not understand what we have done and probably equally why we have done it.

SteveZ: It does not close issue-39, but a good next step would be having Ralph draft a message to the chairs
... I think it's useful to include some of the messaging from Mike and Wayne for new groups

Ralph: Absolutely.

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to draft message to chairs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/28-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Draft message to chairs [on Ralph Swick - due 2013-11-04].

<Ralph> trackbot, associate action-15 with issue-39

<trackbot> action-15 (Draft message to chairs) associated with issue-39.

SteveZ: issue-39 is still open but at least we have a plan forward.

Plan next steps, especially processing comments on the Last Call draft

Jeff: I suspect that in the half-hour on Wednesday, you should be able to tell more about what and why we have done
... This conversation should demonstrate that issue-39 can be a breakout

SteveZ: I'm happy to lead a breakout on Q&A on the overall plan
... I don't know whether chaals does, who's also leading a breakout on chairing.

<koalie> TPAC breakout suggestions

SteveZ: My goal was to try and give a summary similar, with more details, of the process that led us up to making the change
... and then let chaals describe what changes he made
... and why

Jeff: We should find a way to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work he did

SteveZ: I haven't seen a number of comments today
... The date you picked (27 Nov) was fine
... Giving people two weeks after TPAC is fine

Jeff: We also resolved on 1 Jan. as implementation date.

Ralph: There are two action items we can close

<Ralph> action-14?

<trackbot> action-14 -- Steve Zilles to Draft the cover letter that will do with last call draft -- due 2013-10-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/14

<Ralph> action-14 closed

<trackbot> Closed action-14.

<Ralph> action-10?

<trackbot> action-10 -- Ralph Swick to Write text to address issue-39 -- due 2013-10-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/10

<Ralph> action-10 closed

<trackbot> Closed action-10.

Ralph: Action-10 is complete and new action-15 is a follow-up to it.

<Ralph> action-13?

<trackbot> action-13 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Reply to ivan on issue-47 -- due 2013-10-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/13

<Ralph> action-13 closed

<trackbot> Closed action-13.

SteveZ: I don't believe we had any new open issues, it's just 3 and 39

Jeff: Some of the statements can be interpreted and may lead to issues. Might have to convince AC reps to turn comments into issues, for later.

SteveZ: David Singer has been asking for a label for a document being circulated for "wide review". He was concerned that reviewers not be told, "there are too many implementations to make that change now." The problem with this is that the new process is encouraging early implementation (and testing) and that means that reviews need to happen on parts of the specification that are maturing when they mature.
... Status section should inform reviewers what these parts are and the reviewers should look at it
... And I don't know how to convey that

<Ralph> issue-33: see "Director's considerations when evaluating normative references" [Ralph 18-Oct] in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2013OctDec/0020.html

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-33 Normative Reference "policy" is blocking IP commitments from becoming final.

<Ralph> issue-33: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references

<trackbot> Notes added to issue-33 Normative Reference "policy" is blocking IP commitments from becoming final.

Jeff: This is what I meant when I said we need at TPAC to really explain what is going on.
... It's not only what the process is, and the definitions are. We are thinking about things differently.

SteveZ: Thanks for that clarification.

SteveZ: The process changes are only the formalized part of the change we are advocating, we need to also convey the informal intent to be more flexible and agile in our presentation at TPAC.
... Hearing no other business. Thanks very much.

Ralph: I want to coordinate with chaals and will start drafting that chairs message.

SteveZ: I'm not sure we have a need for a meeting next week.

<Ralph> Ralph: regrets for next week

<jeff> regrets for next week, in transit

Jeff: I won't be available either next week

SteveZ: [adjourned]