14:12:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:12:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-irc
14:12:25 <glazou> Steve: I don’t have any email with new draft so stuck there
14:12:54 <glazou> jeff; we have a bunch of AB actions...
14:13:01 <timeless> s/jeff,/jeff:/
14:13:12 <glazou> Jeff: I think chaals had to move some actions to the CG list
14:13:16 <glazou> Jeff: not sure it happened
14:13:21 <glazou> Steve: ok
14:13:29 <glazou> Steve: I still have to do my part of it
14:13:39 <jeff> ack je
14:13:45 <glazou> Steve: I’ll correspond with chaals about it
14:13:49 <jeff> q+ to set the stage for today's CG meeting
14:14:33 <glazou> Steve: /me thanks timeless for rrsagent
14:14:35 <glazou> urgh
14:14:49 <timeless> s/urgh//
14:15:30 <glazou> Jeff: this work between process CG and AB, cleanup run
14:15:39 <glazou> Jeff: AB meeting in two weeks about it
14:15:47 <glazou> Jeff: AC around end of year
14:15:56 <glazou> Jeff: same time, Process 2015 work
14:16:07 <glazou> Jeff: more substantial work on the Process for next year
14:16:19 <jeff> ack je
14:16:19 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to set the stage for today's CG meeting
14:16:24 <glazou> Steve: was there an action associated with that ?
14:16:29 <glazou> Jeff: just a reminder
14:16:37 <glazou> Steve: ok
14:16:44 <glazou> s/jeff,/jeff:
14:16:50 <jeff> s/cleanup run/cleanup run which is Process2015/
14:17:02 <glazou> Steve: last week we went thru issues raised by chaals
14:17:18 <jeff> s/same time, Process2015/same time, Process2016/
14:17:24 <glazou> Steve: we have a few remaining we can deal with
14:17:28 <glazou> Steve: issue 120
14:17:37 <SteveZ> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/120
14:17:53 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:17:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:17:59 <glazou> « ISSUE-120: threshold level of effort that Members are expected to pledge »
14:18:00 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:18:24 <glazou> Steve: originally in the Activity section
14:18:39 <timeless> s|s/same time, Process2015/same time, Process2016/||
14:18:43 <glazou> Steve: question is should this apply to Charters?
14:19:03 <timeless> s/same time, Process 2015/same time, Process2016/
14:19:06 <glazou> Steve: (reads 6.2.6)
14:19:16 <timeless> s|s/jeff,/jeff:/||
14:19:23 <timeless> s/jeff;/jeff:/
14:19:27 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:19:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:20:18 <glazou> Steve: also estimate of time participation for participants
14:20:27 <timeless> s|Steve: /me thanks timeless for rrsagent||
14:20:36 <glazou> Steve: time requirements for both Team and participants are already Charter requirements
14:20:43 <glazou> Steve: so no need to do anything for this one
14:20:46 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
14:20:52 <SteveZ> q?
14:20:58 <jeff> +1
14:21:11 <timeless> issue-115?
14:21:11 <trackbot> issue-115 -- Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months -- open
14:21:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115
14:21:24 <glazou> SteveZ: no objection the closed
14:21:37 <glazou> s/the/then
14:21:45 <glazou> RESOLUTION: issue 120 closed
14:21:46 <timeless> s|s/the/then||
14:21:51 <timeless> s/the/then/
14:21:56 <glazou> SteveZ: next one on the agenda is 122
14:22:14 <glazou> SteveZ: « ISSUE-122: What community is expected to benefit from this Activity? »
14:22:32 <glazou> SteveZ: should we put this requirement on Charters?
14:22:43 <glazou> SteveZ: suggested that this requirement is only applicable to an Activity
14:23:07 <glazou> SteveZ: it is sort of self-evident that when you construct a Charter, the Charter stands alone
14:23:21 <jeff> +1 to closing
14:23:27 <glazou> SteveZ: so this looks like unnecessary and I suggest closing with « no action required"
14:23:28 <glazou> +1
14:23:44 <glazou> SteveZ: objections?
14:23:45 <timeless> s/+1/glazou: +1/
14:23:59 <glazou> Zakim: who is on the ophone?
14:24:05 <glazou> Zakim: who is on the phone?
14:24:17 <timeless> Zakim, who is making noise?
14:24:29 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveZ (77%)
14:24:41 <dsinger__> dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:25:34 <dsinger__> dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:26:09 <glazou> dsinger__: believes the AB should take an active role, this is another piece of assessment, ok with closing « should be part of AB assessment"
14:27:36 <dsinger__> Plz note as xfered to AB then close
14:27:41 <timeless> Zakim, what conferences are active?
14:27:41 <Zakim> I see Team_(MEET)10:00AM, INK_Team()9:00AM, XML_EXI()10:00AM, AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM, DPUB_DIGC()10:00AM active
14:27:43 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_UAWG(CHAIRS)10:30AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM
14:27:43 <dsinger__> zakim, mute dsinger
14:27:43 <Zakim> dsinger should now be muted
14:28:12 <dsinger__> dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:28:13 <glazou> RESOLUTION: close action 122 but make it a part of AB assessment
14:28:27 <dsinger__> Zakim, who is here?
14:28:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jay, Jeff, SteveZ, dsinger (muted), glazou, Mike_Champion, timeless
14:28:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see dsinger__, RRSAgent, jeff, SteveZ, Zakim, Jay, glazou, timeless, cwilso, trackbot
14:28:47 <timeless> zakim, list conferences
14:28:47 <Zakim> I see Team_(MEET)10:00AM, INK_Team()9:00AM, XML_EXI()10:00AM, AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM, DPUB_DIGC()10:00AM active
14:28:50 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_UAWG(CHAIRS)10:30AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM
14:28:50 <SteveZ> Issue 123: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123
14:28:57 <glazou> SteveZ: ISSUE-123: Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG
14:29:05 <timeless> Zakim, what conference is this?
14:29:05 <Zakim> this is AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM conference code 7762
14:29:08 <dsinger__> Issue-123?
14:29:08 <trackbot> Issue-123 -- Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG -- raised
14:29:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123
14:29:16 <timeless> Zakim, what's the code?
14:29:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 7762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), timeless
14:29:41 <glazou> SteveZ: date of 1st ftf for a newly chartered WG
14:29:54 <glazou> SteveZ: timing of things discussed before at AB
14:30:10 <glazou> SteveZ: traditionnally 8 weeks after announcement of WG so people can join and make travel plans
14:30:22 <jeff> q+
14:30:24 <glazou> SteveZ: no change suggested but maybe leave open for AB meeting ?
14:30:44 <glazou> jeff: well, nothing wrong with AB talking more about it
14:30:57 <dsinger__> Not sure what the question is
14:30:58 <glazou> jeff: why would we extend this beyond 8 weeks?
14:31:20 <glazou> jeff: if you want to leave it open I won’t object
14:31:38 <glazou> SteveZ: I’m happy to close it but if AB happens to come with diffferent plan...
14:31:44 <glazou> jeff: no strong opinion
14:31:54 <glazou> SteveZ: dsinger, you were part of the discussion?
14:31:55 <dsinger__> Do not recall the issue...
14:32:03 <dsinger__> On noisy street
14:32:45 <glazou> timeless: no objection
14:32:56 <glazou> SteveZ: then I will close this one as no change
14:33:03 <glazou> glazou: +1
14:33:20 <glazou> RESOLUTION: action 123 closed, no change
14:33:40 <dsinger__> Just concerned I should know what the motive wax to ask the question
14:33:52 <dsinger__> dsinger__ has joined #w3process
14:34:02 <glazou> SteveZ: action 109 discussed over email during last week
14:34:08 <glazou> « ISSUE-109: Should AC approval be required to extend a charter »
14:34:12 <timeless> s/wax/was/
14:34:16 <glazou> SteveZ: I think in the end there was some agreement
14:34:33 <dsinger___> dsinger___ has joined #w3process
14:34:34 <glazou> SteveZ: that we did not need AC approval to extend a Charter
14:35:03 <glazou> SteveZ: still discussion there should be a limit on an amount of time for  Charter extensions
14:35:09 <glazou> SteveZ: six months proposed
14:35:11 <glazou> q+
14:35:21 <jeff> q-
14:35:58 <glazou> glazou: limit to six months w/o AC review ?
14:36:00 <glazou> SteveZ: correct
14:36:05 <SteveZ> Glazou: As I understand it the proposal is to limit the extension to six months without an AC review
14:36:10 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
14:36:13 <glazou> glazou: then I think it is a bad proposal six months not enough
14:36:20 <dsinger> zakim, unmute dsinger
14:36:20 <Zakim> dsinger should no longer be muted
14:36:35 <dsinger> q+
14:37:17 <SteveZ> Glazou:Some charters are extended multiple times: if limited to six months this this will be a larger overhead on chairs and Team
14:37:27 <dsinger> q?
14:37:47 <SteveZ> Glazou: It should be at least a year
14:37:53 <dsinger> zakim, mute dsinger
14:37:53 <Zakim> dsinger should now be muted
14:38:02 <glazou> Mike: my intent here was to encourage WG to be more realistic when they operate
14:38:28 <glazou> Mike: if you don’t change your scope, it will let you extend too many times
14:38:34 <glazou> Mike: intent was to put a cap on that
14:39:14 <timeless> s/SteveZ/scribe/
14:39:16 <timeless> s/SteveZ/scribe/
14:39:16 <glazou> Mike: Team’s task will be to recharter instead of extending
14:39:24 <dsinger> zakim, unmute dsinger
14:39:24 <Zakim> dsinger should no longer be muted
14:39:27 <timeless> s/Glazou:Some/Glazou: Some/
14:39:32 <glazou> dsinger: this is fairly long
14:39:34 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:39:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
14:39:41 <glazou> dsinger: something between these two positions
14:39:49 <timeless> s/Zakim: who is on the ophone?//
14:39:51 <glazou> dsinger: some things are not in the hands of WG
14:39:56 <timeless> s/Zakim: who is on the phone?//
14:40:11 <glazou> dsinger: « you need 5% of membership to support charter"
14:40:31 <SteveZ> Q+
14:40:34 <glazou> dsinger: if you ask multiple extensions then any Team or AC can say you have to go back to AC
14:40:58 <glazou> dsinger: repeated extensions of Charter may be blocked by Team or AC
14:41:24 <glazou> SteveZ: if you’re unhappy with Team giving extension you can appel
14:41:34 <glazou> s/appel/appeal
14:41:44 <timeless> q+ to ask about WGs with deliverables that are "maintenance-like" or "continue to evolve X"
14:42:11 <glazou> SteveZ: even the 1st six months extension is appealable
14:42:14 <jeff> q+
14:42:20 <glazou> SteveZ: who will appeal?
14:42:29 <dsinger> yes, I understand. perhaps we should look at the wording of the clause in question
14:42:32 <SteveZ> ack g
14:42:35 <SteveZ> ack s
14:42:42 <SteveZ> ack d
14:43:08 <glazou> timeless: in principle WG job is to maintain « something"
14:43:30 <glazou> timeless: do we really want to threaten them with « we could refuse extension » ?
14:43:45 <dsinger> I guess we need to look at concrete proposals to change http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#charter-extension
14:43:53 <glazou> timeless: if they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing...
14:44:13 <dsinger> OK, let us not confuse this we re-chartering where we add/delete deliverables, and so on
14:44:18 <timeless> ack timeless
14:44:18 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask about WGs with deliverables that are "maintenance-like" or "continue to evolve X"
14:44:20 <glazou> jeff: I appreciate what Mike and dsinger are trying to do in theory
14:44:33 <glazou> jeff: not aware of what practical problem we’re solving
14:44:42 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:44:42 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:44:48 <glazou> jeff: no permanent extension w/o going to AC
14:44:49 <dsinger> I think we see too many ‘charter … is hereby extended’, but I am saying this without data
14:45:05 <dsinger> I merely want to add the right for the team to call for AC review
14:45:06 <glazou> jeff: skeptical about new requirements to solve theoretical issues
14:45:22 <glazou> jeff: I’m more with timeless on this issue
14:45:44 <dsinger> s/Advisory Committee representatives MAY appeal the extension of a Working Group or Interest Group charter./Any member of the AC or the team may request a full charter review in response to a request for an extension./
14:45:50 <glazou> SteveZ: I agree with you Jeff, I don’tt hink extensions have be abused
14:45:54 <glazou> s/be/been
14:46:06 <timeless> s/don’tt hink/don’t think/
14:46:31 <glazou> SteveZ: the reason there is a every-2-yr review is that from time to time a Group cease to function because the membership there dies out
14:46:38 <glazou> SteveZ: sometimes you don’t notice that
14:46:51 <glazou> SteveZ: for example the XSL-FO group
14:47:08 <glazou> SteveZ: it lost energy over time and ceased to function so it was appropriate to close it
14:47:20 <timeless> i support that case
14:47:20 <glazou> SteveZ: so there is validity in having charter review
14:47:31 <glazou> SteveZ: and validity in mike and dsinger point
14:47:36 <dsinger> I am looking at the trace of emails from Ian Jacobs that contain “hereby extended”.  There were a lot in 2010, quite a few in 2011, a decent number in 2012, fewer in 2013, and only one so far in 2014
14:47:43 <timeless> q+ to ask if there's a concern about things that are less web oriented
14:47:45 <dsinger> zakim, unmute dsinger
14:47:45 <Zakim> dsinger was not muted, dsinger
14:47:47 <glazou> SteveZ: Mike and David can you live w/o that change ? for 2015
14:47:54 <timeless> q- jeff
14:47:54 <glazou> Mike: I can live with that
14:48:39 <glazou> Mike: I think we’re dealing with larger problem with WHATWG people when W3C specs lose credibility
14:48:58 <jeff> q+ to comment about conflating "charter extensions" with credibility
14:49:19 <glazou> dsinger: looking at Charters
14:49:25 <glazou> dsinger: maybe we’re getting better
14:49:31 <glazou> dsinger: suggestion to change sentence
14:49:43 <glazou> dsinger: AC appeal sounds ok
14:50:27 <timeless> scribe: timeless
14:50:38 <timeless> dsinger: in 2010 there were many extensions
14:50:47 <timeless> ... in 2011 there were somewhat fewer
14:50:57 <timeless> ... in 2012 there were fewer
14:51:04 <timeless> ... in 2013 there were a handful
14:51:09 <timeless> ... in 2014 there was one or two
14:51:28 <timeless> SteveZ: we can leave it open, to see if there's a problem to fix or not
14:51:36 <timeless> dsinger: maybe we should ask Team if they have a problem
14:51:43 <timeless> ... that they need to have a charter review
14:51:59 <timeless> jeff: formally it's the Director's choice to do a charter extension
14:52:10 <timeless> ... so if the team doesn't want to, the director can choose not to
14:52:31 <timeless> dsinger: formally the Chair sends a request to Team who sends to Director who sends to AC saying it happened
14:52:49 <timeless> jeff: it actually happens that Team tells Chair to work on Charter
14:52:57 <timeless> ... and then triggers an extension process
14:53:12 <timeless> SteveZ: are you ok w/ me closing it as "process is currently working"?
14:53:30 <jeff> q?
14:53:32 <timeless> dsinger: if we had a problematic WG, we could close it because the process has teeth
14:53:34 <timeless> ack trackbot
14:53:37 <timeless> ack timeless
14:53:38 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if there's a concern about things that are less web oriented
14:54:15 <timeless> ack jeff
14:54:15 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment about conflating "charter extensions" with credibility
14:54:25 <timeless> jeff: there's the super groups issue in the background
14:54:34 <glazou> q+
14:54:40 <timeless> ... how should a charter extension be organized for groups we know will live for some time
14:54:42 <jeff> q+ to comment about conflating "charter extensions" with credibility
14:54:45 <timeless> ... that's still very much an open issue
14:54:58 <timeless> dsinger: the habit of forcing everyone to re-read the damn charter
14:55:09 <timeless> ... to force people to think about whether something is good
14:55:13 <glazou> q?
14:55:32 <timeless> Zakim, who is speaking?
14:55:43 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveZ (25%), timeless (49%), dsinger (44%)
14:56:00 <timeless> ack glazou
14:56:05 <timeless> glazou: you mention the super groups
14:56:17 <timeless> ... one of the key things about super groups is that they don't change scope
14:56:23 <timeless> ... only deliverables
14:56:30 <timeless> ... that's why i was mentioning permanent extensions
14:56:35 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
14:56:35 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
14:56:44 <timeless> ... do you think it will be an issue for them?
14:56:45 <dsinger> if deliverables change, then we MUST do charter review
14:57:07 <dsinger> this is ‘extend with no change of anything’
14:57:13 <timeless> jeff: i don't see the director giving charter extensions over and over
14:57:21 <timeless> glazou: i know that's the current state of things
14:57:30 <timeless> ... but, super groups are special
14:57:31 <jeff> s/jeff: I don't/SteveZ: I don't/
14:57:33 <timeless> ... there's an IPR issue
14:57:46 <timeless> ... a mandatory AC review each time we do this
14:58:00 <timeless> ... we may have to revisit this issue
14:58:05 <glazou> ack glazou
14:58:18 <timeless> SteveZ: let's do supergroups discussion in that context
14:58:27 <jeff> q-
14:58:27 <timeless> resolution: closed, there are sufficient checks and balances
14:58:33 <timeless> q+ timeless to ask for pointer on supergrups
14:58:39 <timeless> q- timeless
14:58:50 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
14:58:50 <Zakim> timeless should no longer be muted
14:59:02 <timeless> SteveZ: waiting input from chaals for the other two items
14:59:09 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
15:00:08 <timeless> SteveZ: i'll send the minutes from last week
15:00:13 <timeless> ... and fix up today's
15:00:20 <timeless> ... thanks to the scribes
15:00:22 <Zakim> -dsinger
15:00:25 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
15:00:26 <Zakim> -Jeff
15:00:33 <Zakim> -glazou
15:00:35 <Zakim> -timeless
15:00:41 <Zakim> -Jay
15:01:00 <SteveZ> Zakim, attendees?
15:01:00 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, SteveZ.
15:01:12 <SteveZ> Zakim, who is on irc?
15:01:12 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, SteveZ.
15:01:32 <Zakim> -SteveZ
15:01:34 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
15:01:34 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, SteveZ, glazou, Jay, dsinger, timeless, +33.1.34.51.aaaa, Mike_Champion
15:02:38 <SteveZ> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html SteveZ
15:03:11 <timeless> i/don’t have any email with new draft so stuck there/scribe: glazou/
15:03:16 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:03:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:04:13 <glazou> pretty good job timeless
15:04:20 <timeless> s/resolution/RESOLUTION/
15:04:23 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:04:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:05:08 <timeless> s/jeff: i don't/SteveZ: I don't/
15:05:15 <timeless> s|s/jeff: I don't/SteveZ: I don't/||
15:05:35 <glazou> glazou has left #w3process
15:05:40 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:06:32 <timeless> i/scribe: glazou/[ Minutes before this point are missing -- to be inserted by Chair ]/
15:06:34 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:06:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:06:50 <timeless> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html timeless
17:05:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process