16:07:43 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 16:07:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-irc 16:07:48 Zakim has joined #w3process 16:07:54 zakim, this is chap7 16:07:55 ok, Ralph; that matches Team_JEFF()11:00AM 16:07:59 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:08:00 On the phone I see Mike_Champion, fantasai, SteveZ, Ralph 16:09:01 Meeting: agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0067.html 16:09:19 s|Meeting: agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0067.html|| 16:09:24 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0067.html 16:10:46 -> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html previous 02-Dec 16:11:01 Meeting: AB TR Process Task Force 16:11:04 chair: SteveZ 16:11:11 SteveZ: I'm chairing while driving 16:11:59 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0044.html "New chapter 7 draft" [Chaals 12-Dec] 16:12:32 Fantasai: I note that this organization talks about Working Draft before we know what a Recommendation is 16:12:54 SteveZ: I would like a one-paragraph overview of the Process in the front 16:13:22 Mike: that's where we'd summarize the steps to Recommendation 16:13:42 Fantasai: it's important to know what it is and why it's important before the details 16:13:49 ... the goal of the Process is to encourage ... 16:13:57 ... important to have this up front 16:14:06 SteveZ: I'd like a call out to the definitions up front 16:14:16 ... in CSS we tended to put definitions up front 16:14:37 Fantasai: we did a variety of things; if a concept is global to the entire document, we put it up front 16:15:13 if local, we kept it local 16:15:39 SteveZ: so we need an introduction that talks about what a Recommendation is and what a Note is 16:16:03 Mike: good summary 16:16:31 Fantasai: I think "Classes of Changes to a Recommendation" should be merged with "Substantive Change" 16:16:40 SteveZ: there's history, though I'm not going to disagree 16:16:56 ... Chaals tried to do this merge but Ian objected 16:17:12 ... Changes to a Recommendation were for revising Recommendations 16:17:31 ... Substantive Change had to do with the Patent Policy; it opens a patent exclusion period 16:17:54 Fantasai: we don't have to fold down the classes, just @@ 16:18:30 SteveZ: Ian didn't want such a distinction recorded at the Process level 16:19:22 ... recognizing that "bugs are in the eye of the beholder"; one person's "bug" is another person's "substantive change" 16:19:45 ... I can ping Ian again and find out what he could live with 16:19:59 action: SteveZ ping Ian on "substantive change change" 16:19:59 Created ACTION-25 - Ping ian on "substantive change change" [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-23]. 16:20:25 Fantasai: the section "Ending work on a Technical Report" disappeared 16:20:39 ... it was nice to see that there were two options; Rescind and Note 16:20:56 ... though it's implied in 7.7 and 7.8 16:21:02 ... I think it was better to have it be explicit 16:21:36 SteveZ: there's another discussion on how to end the Process short of Recommendation 16:22:03 ... e.g. if the Working Group has ceased to exist, what notice should the Team attach to a Working Draft? 16:27:01 Ralph: I am uncomfortable leaving a WD or CR with a comment that says "The Working Group is no longer working on this" 16:27:28 Fantasai: it would make a difference if the WG stopped working on a spec because it thought it was a bad idea, or something else 16:27:40 ... it would be good for the WG to state its reasons for stopping work 16:27:55 SteveZ: republishing as a Note could happen with such a statement 16:28:29 ... if there was a concerted effort in moving it back to the Rec-track, that could be done 16:28:52 Fantasai: seems this could be part of the summary of the Process 16:29:18 ... e.g. if the WG gives up because it ran out of time, publish a Note saying that 16:29:32 ... or if it decides something is a bad idea, publish the Note saying it's a bad idea 16:29:41 ... or if it ran out of funding 16:29:50 SteveZ: yea, documenting .. 16:30:11 ... Chaals said it was important to indicate the expected next step at the beginning of each document 16:30:27 ... so that people who pick up a W3C spec are told whether it is "real" or not 16:30:46 ... I think moving something off of /TR would be important in that context 16:30:58 ... we shouldn't assume everyone is as tuned-in as [the Working Group] 16:31:22 ... so we should ask Chaals to add back a section such as Fantasai requested 16:32:01 topic: Issue-39 16:32:07 issue-39? 16:32:07 issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open 16:32:07 http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39 16:33:11 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html 02-Dec draft 16:38:11 Ralph: [summarizes the notes in the email] 16:38:38 Mike: I didn't detect a lot of enthusiam for these changes during the AC meeting 16:38:54 ... with my Microsoft hat I'm reluctant to force WGs to change 16:40:27 Ralph: this was addressed by removing MUST deadlines 16:40:36 Fantasai: so the deadline is now a "should" 16:40:53 ... 24 months 16:41:01 ... and there has to be justification for exceptions 16:41:06 Mike: that makes sense 16:42:04 ... Last Call is helpful in managing some WGs 16:42:16 ... making little steps to satisfy requirements one at a time 16:42:31 ... sometimes a tangible push is needed to get to a Process state 16:42:47 ... the other question on signalling need for wide review 16:43:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0012.html 16:43:14 ... some groups, e.g. Accessibility, have broad scope and tend to schedule review time at major steps 16:44:04 ... ideally the horizontal reviewers would be more engaged in the group's progress 16:45:00 ... in the special case of broad Working Groups where it's difficult for horizontal reviewers to know when to jump in, having an optional Last Call step where the chairs say "this really is your last opportunity and you'll get a fair hearing if you respond by the deadline" is an important tool to chairs 16:45:13 ... we can accomodate this but it does create resistance 16:45:28 ... until we have a clear story on how to create the moral equivalent of Last Call 16:45:45 Fantasai: Last Call is usually much later in the process than you really want feedback 16:46:03 ... e.g. in the design phase the WG will take comments on just about anything 16:46:31 ... once the design is solid it's a great time for people to comment on the design 16:46:39 ... the WG's next step is to fill in the details of the design 16:47:17 ... eventually the WG should say "we're done with all the details" and then it's too late to hear comments on the overall design 16:47:37 ... ideally we want reviewers to have completed detailed review well before "Last Call" 16:47:59 ... Last Call should not last long and should not be generating lots of comments 16:48:23 ... a group who says "we want you to send in your comments now" at Last Call will find itself doing several "Last Calls" 16:48:38 ... they're using a Process Hammer at the wrong time 16:49:10 ... better to communicate the need for wide review and the type of review you're looking for section-by-section 16:49:23 ... so by the time you're ready to transition to CR you have most of the comments 16:49:49 ... the problem with the way Last Call has been used is that people interpret it as "now I can send my feedback" 16:50:16 Mike: the new proposal is optimized to modern style of WGs; the significant stakeholders are represented in the WG 16:50:41 ... the problem is that, e.g., Accessibility review needs some stronger signal 16:51:11 ... when there's not a high-bandwidth conversation between the stakeholders you need a bigger hammer 16:51:20 s/section-by-section/section-by-section or phase-by-phas/ 16:51:25 s/phas/phase/ 16:51:49 ... when we talked with Tantek about this a while back we noted the problem that the Process doesn't accommodate section-by-section review 16:52:24 SteveZ: two issues: I heard consensus on "SHOULD adopt the new process within 24 months" 16:53:09 ... the second question on how to accommodate groups who need more time for wide review; in such cases the groups' charters could have additional language 16:53:30 ... there are different audiences who need different signals at different times 16:54:04 ... so we want to experiment with allowing WGs to find ways to get wide review 16:54:22 ... I understand why some WG chairs might want to keep the bigger hammer 16:54:42 ... a group can set up additional criteria 16:55:44 Mike: I like that a WG charter could state "we intend to do a Last Call" 16:57:01 topic: next meeting 16:57:10 SteveZ: no meeting on 23 or 30 Dec 16:57:17 ... can we meet 6 Jan? 16:57:28 Ralph: ok 16:57:30 Fantasai: ok 16:57:32 Mike: ok 16:58:33 SteveZ: perhaps Fantasai could draft some text on 'signalling'? 16:58:37 Fantasai: OK 16:59:23 SteveZ: Art said that the only critical change was dropping PR and all the other things could be done under the current Process 16:59:43 ... some groups would like to use this new Process and help debug it and that would meet Art's criteria 17:00:14 Mike: interesting that the chairs of two of our largest groups are unenthusiastic about how it applies to their Groups 17:00:33 -Mike_Champion 17:00:38 -Ralph 17:00:40 -SteveZ 17:00:55 Team_JEFF()11:00AM has ended 17:00:55 Attendees were Mike_Champion, fantasai, SteveZ, Ralph 17:01:10 rrsagent, please make record public 17:01:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:01:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html Ralph 17:04:44 jeff has joined #w3process 18:03:28 chaals has joined #w3process 18:03:36 zakim, code? 18:03:36 the conference code is hidden, chaals 18:04:37 zakim, what conference is this? 18:04:38 this will be Team_JEFF()11:00AM, chaals 18:04:38 this was Team_JEFF()11:00AM 18:05:05 trackbot, start conference 18:05:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:05:09 Zakim, this will be 18:05:09 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 18:05:10 Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference 18:05:10 Date: 16 December 2013 18:05:19 zakim, this will be team_je 18:05:19 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, chaals 18:05:38 zakim, this is team 18:05:38 team matches both Team_(digpub)18:00Z and T&S_Team()12:00PM, chaals 18:09:40 rrsagent, pointer? 18:09:40 See http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-irc#T18-09-40 18:29:51 sgalineau has joined #w3process 20:05:07 sgalineau has joined #w3process 20:25:06 Zakim has left #w3process 20:47:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 20:47:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html Ralph 23:01:42 cwilso has joined #w3process