See also: IRC log
<inserted> [ Minutes before this point are missing -- to be inserted by Chair ]
<inserted> scribe: glazou
Steve: I don’t have any email with new draft so stuck there
jeff: we have a bunch of AB
actions...
... I think chaals had to move some actions to the CG
list
... not sure it happened
Steve: ok
... I still have to do my part of it
... I’ll correspond with chaals about it
Jeff: this work between process
CG and AB, cleanup run which is Process2015
... AB meeting in two weeks about it
... AC around end of year
... same time, Process2016 work
... more substantial work on the Process for next year
Steve: was there an action associated with that ?
Jeff: just a reminder
Steve: ok
... last week we went thru issues raised by chaals
... we have a few remaining we can deal with
... issue 120
<SteveZ> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/120
« ISSUE-120: threshold level of effort that Members are expected to pledge »
Steve: originally in the Activity
section
... question is should this apply to Charters?
... (reads 6.2.6)
... also estimate of time participation for participants
... time requirements for both Team and participants are
already Charter requirements
... so no need to do anything for this one
<jeff> +1
<timeless> issue-115?
<trackbot> issue-115 -- Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115
SteveZ: no objection then closed
RESOLUTION: issue 120 closed
<timeless> s|s/the/thenn||
SteveZ: next one on the agenda is
122
... « ISSUE-122: What community is expected to benefit
from this Activity? »
... should we put this requirement on Charters?
... suggested that this requirement is only applicable to an
Activity
... it is sort of self-evident that when you construct a
Charter, the Charter stands alone
<jeff> +1 to closing
SteveZ: so this looks like unnecessary and I suggest closing with « no action required"
glazou: +1
SteveZ: objections?
dsinger__: believes the AB should take an active role, this is another piece of assessment, ok with closing « should be part of AB assessment"
<dsinger__> Plz note as xfered to AB then close
RESOLUTION: close action 122 but make it a part of AB assessment
<SteveZ> Issue 123: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123
SteveZ: ISSUE-123: Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG
<dsinger__> Issue-123?
<trackbot> Issue-123 -- Date of the first face-to-face meeting.of a newly chartered WG -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/123
SteveZ: date of 1st ftf for a
newly chartered WG
... timing of things discussed before at AB
... traditionnally 8 weeks after announcement of WG so people
can join and make travel plans
... no change suggested but maybe leave open for AB meeting
?
jeff: well, nothing wrong with AB talking more about it
<dsinger__> Not sure what the question is
jeff: why would we extend this
beyond 8 weeks?
... if you want to leave it open I won’t object
SteveZ: I’m happy to close it but if AB happens to come with diffferent plan...
jeff: no strong opinion
SteveZ: dsinger, you were part of the discussion?
<dsinger__> Do not recall the issue...
<dsinger__> On noisy street
timeless: no objection
SteveZ: then I will close this one as no change
glazou: +1
RESOLUTION: action 123 closed, no change
<dsinger__> Just concerned I should know what the motive was to ask the question
SteveZ: action 109 discussed over email during last week
« ISSUE-109: Should AC approval be required to extend a charter »
SteveZ: I think in the end there
was some agreement
... that we did not need AC approval to extend a Charter
... still discussion there should be a limit on an amount of
time for Charter extensions
... six months proposed
glazou: limit to six months w/o AC review ?
SteveZ: correct
<SteveZ> Glazou: As I understand it the proposal is to limit the extension to six months without an AC review
glazou: then I think it is a bad
proposal six months not enough
... Some charters are extended multiple times: if limited to
six months this this will be a larger overhead on chairs and
Team
... It should be at least a year
Mike: my intent here was to
encourage WG to be more realistic when they operate
... if you don’t change your scope, it will let you extend too
many times
... intent was to put a cap on that
... Team’s task will be to recharter instead of extending
dsinger: this is fairly
long
... something between these two positions
... some things are not in the hands of WG
... « you need 5% of membership to support charter"
... if you ask multiple extensions then any Team or AC can say
you have to go back to AC
... repeated extensions of Charter may be blocked by Team or
AC
SteveZ: if you’re unhappy with
Team giving extension you can appeal
... even the 1st six months extension is appealable
... who will appeal?
<dsinger> yes, I understand. perhaps we should look at the wording of the clause in question
timeless: in principle WG job is
to maintain « something"
... do we really want to threaten them with « we could
refuse extension » ?
<dsinger> I guess we need to look at concrete proposals to change http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#charter-extension
timeless: if they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing...
<dsinger> OK, let us not confuse this we re-chartering where we add/delete deliverables, and so on
<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask about WGs with deliverables that are "maintenance-like" or "continue to evolve X"
jeff: I appreciate what Mike and
dsinger are trying to do in theory
... not aware of what practical problem we’re solving
... no permanent extension w/o going to AC
<dsinger> I think we see too many ‘charter … is hereby extended’, but I am saying this without data
<dsinger> I merely want to add the right for the team to call for AC review
jeff: skeptical about new
requirements to solve theoretical issues
... I’m more with timeless on this issue
<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./
SteveZ: I agree with you Jeff, I
don’t think extensions have been abused
... 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
... sometimes you don’t notice that
... for example the XSL-FO group
... it lost energy over time and ceased to function so it was
appropriate to close it
<timeless> i support that case
SteveZ: so there is validity in
having charter review
... and validity in mike and dsinger point
<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
SteveZ: Mike and David can you live w/o that change ? for 2015
Mike: I can live with that
... I think we’re dealing with larger problem with WHATWG
people when W3C specs lose credibility
dsinger: looking at
Charters
... maybe we’re getting better
... suggestion to change sentence
... AC appeal sounds ok
<timeless> scribe: timeless
dsinger: in 2010 there were many
extensions
... in 2011 there were somewhat fewer
... in 2012 there were fewer
... in 2013 there were a handful
... in 2014 there was one or two
SteveZ: we can leave it open, to see if there's a problem to fix or not
dsinger: maybe we should ask Team
if they have a problem
... that they need to have a charter review
jeff: formally it's the
Director's choice to do a charter extension
... so if the team doesn't want to, the director can choose not
to
dsinger: formally the Chair sends a request to Team who sends to Director who sends to AC saying it happened
jeff: it actually happens that
Team tells Chair to work on Charter
... and then triggers an extension process
SteveZ: are you ok w/ me closing it as "process is currently working"?
dsinger: if we had a problematic WG, we could close it because the process has teeth
<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if there's a concern about things that are less web oriented
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment about conflating "charter extensions" with credibility
jeff: there's the super groups
issue in the background
... how should a charter extension be organized for groups we
know will live for some time
... that's still very much an open issue
dsinger: the habit of forcing
everyone to re-read the damn charter
... to force people to think about whether something is
good
glazou: you mention the super
groups
... one of the key things about super groups is that they don't
change scope
... only deliverables
... that's why i was mentioning permanent extensions
... do you think it will be an issue for them?
<dsinger> if deliverables change, then we MUST do charter review
<dsinger> this is ‘extend with no change of anything’
SteveZ: I don't see the director giving charter extensions over and over
glazou: i know that's the current
state of things
... but, super groups are special
... there's an IPR issue
... a mandatory AC review each time we do this
... we may have to revisit this issue
SteveZ: let's do supergroups discussion in that context
RESOLUTION: closed, there are sufficient checks and balances
SteveZ: waiting input from chaals
for the other two items
... i'll send the minutes from last week
... and fix up today's
... thanks to the scribes
[ Adjourned ]
<glazou> pretty good job timeless
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/jeff,/jeff:/ Succeeded: s/urgh// Succeeded: s/jeff,/jeff:/ Succeeded: s/cleanup run/cleanup run which is Process2015/ FAILED: s/same time, Process2015/same time, Process2016/ Succeeded: s|s/same time, Process2015/same time, Process2016/|| Succeeded: s/same time, Process 2015/same time, Process2016/ Succeeded: s|s/jeff,/jeff:/|| Succeeded: s/jeff;/jeff:/ Succeeded: s|Steve: /me thanks timeless for rrsagent|| Succeeded: s/the/then/ FAILED: s|s/the/then|| Succeeded: s/the/then/ Succeeded: s/+1/glazou: +1/ Succeeded: s/wax/was/ Succeeded: s/SteveZ/scribe/ Succeeded: s/SteveZ/scribe/ Succeeded: s/Glazou:Some/Glazou: Some/ Succeeded: s/Zakim: who is on the ophone?// Succeeded: s/Zakim: who is on the phone?// Succeeded: s/appel/appeal/ FAILED: 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./ Succeeded: s/be/been/ Succeeded: s/don’tt hink/don’t think/ FAILED: s/jeff: I don't/SteveZ: I don't/ Succeeded: i/don’t have any email with new draft so stuck there/scribe: glazou Succeeded: s/resolution/RESOLUTION/ Succeeded: s/jeff: i don't/SteveZ: I don't/ Succeeded: s|s/jeff: I don't/SteveZ: I don't/|| Succeeded: i/scribe: glazou/[ Minutes before this point are missing -- to be inserted by Chair ] Found Scribe: glazou Inferring ScribeNick: glazou Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless Scribes: glazou, timeless ScribeNicks: glazou, timeless WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Jeff, SteveZ, glazou, Jay, dsinger, timeless, +33.1.34.51.aaaa, Mike_Champion Present: Jeff SteveZ glazou Jay dsinger timeless +33.1.34.51.aaaa Mike_Champion WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 02 Sep 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/02-w3process-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]