14:58:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:58:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-irc
14:58:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
14:58:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:58:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:59:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
14:59:00 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2014
14:59:13 <SteveZ> Zakim, this will be #proc
14:59:14 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, SteveZ
14:59:25 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:28 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:59:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:00:10 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:10 <Zakim> sorry, timeless, I don't know what conference this is
15:00:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveZ, Jay, jeff, fantasai, mdjp, cwilso, timeless, trackbot
15:00:35 <timeless> Zakim, this is process
15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, timeless; that matches AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM
15:00:51 <Zakim> +SteveZ
15:00:58 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
15:01:19 <SteveZ> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref, ??P3, Jeff, SteveZ
15:01:42 <Jay> Zakim, ??P3 is Jay
15:01:42 <Zakim> +Jay; got it
15:01:48 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:02:00 <timeless> scribe: timeless
15:03:11 <SteveZ> 1.	Review Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
15:03:58 <timeless> regrets: chaals, dsinger
15:04:16 <timeless> s/SteveZ/timeless/
15:04:19 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:04:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:05:00 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
15:05:02 <timeless> s/<timeless> 1./<SteveZ> 1./
15:05:07 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:05:54 <timeless> s|Review Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open|-> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open Review Open Action Items|
15:05:56 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:06:29 <timeless> s/Review Open Action Items/"Review Open Action Items" (#1)/
15:06:32 <timeless> s/1. //
15:06:34 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:06:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:06:57 <timeless> s|s/1. //||
15:07:03 <timeless> s/1.//
15:07:05 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:07:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:07:37 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:07:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref, Jay, Jeff, SteveZ, Mike_Champion
15:07:57 <timeless> SteveZ: one of my actions was to create action-148
15:08:00 <timeless> action-148?
15:08:00 <trackbot> Sorry, but action-148 does not exist.
15:08:44 <timeless> s/action-148?//
15:08:50 <timeless> s/Sorry, but action-148 does not exist.//
15:09:01 <timeless> s/action-/issue-/
15:09:06 <timeless> issue-148?
15:09:06 <trackbot> issue-148 -- Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document -- raised
15:09:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
15:09:15 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:09:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:09:34 <timeless> ... i take it judy didn't make it for this meeting
15:09:37 <timeless> jeff: i spoke to her
15:09:48 <timeless> ... both about the idea of using a Member only IG
15:09:51 <timeless> ... and two other ideas
15:10:08 <timeless> ... she was not very enamored by these proposals
15:10:22 <timeless> ... my judgement that there is an overwhelming view from the Process TF
15:10:32 <timeless> ... that we shouldn't have Coord-Groups just for the sake of one group
15:10:46 <timeless> ... but, Judy is providing Strong and Accurate input, of the form "i have something that is working now
15:10:52 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:10:52 <Zakim> sorry, timeless, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:11:15 <timeless> Zakim, nick alias josh is me
15:11:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'nick alias josh is me', timeless
15:11:42 <timeless> Zakim: nick timeless is josh
15:11:46 <timeless> s/Zakim: nick timeless is josh//
15:11:48 <timeless> Zakim, nick timeless is josh
15:11:48 <Zakim> ok, timeless, I now associate you with Josh_Soref
15:11:52 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:11:52 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
15:12:01 <timeless> jeff: i sent an email, intended for chaals
15:12:15 <timeless> ... asking him if we would meet one-on-one with Judy
15:12:31 <timeless> ... my reply failed to be directed to chaals
15:12:35 <timeless> ... and SteveZ replied
15:12:43 <timeless> ... she's open minded to work on this
15:12:59 <timeless> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:13:04 <timeless> ... so, the next step is SteveZ, chaals to work with judy on this
15:13:10 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveZ (26%), Mike_Champion (59%)
15:13:23 <timeless> mike: what position does Judy have to veto process changes
15:13:38 <jeff> q+
15:13:40 <timeless> ... if WGs who are in her Coord-Group want to continue meeting, they can have this meeting
15:13:47 <timeless> ... we're saying it doesn't have to be in the process document
15:14:02 <timeless> jeff: we don't have to negotiate with judy
15:14:10 <timeless> ... when we did Process-2014, we had an open dialog on process cahnges
15:14:16 <timeless> ... we had two LCs
15:14:28 <timeless> ... in the second LC to Process-2014, there were no objections what-so-ever
15:14:34 <timeless> ... but when we sent it to AC Review
15:14:50 <SteveZ> Topic: Action-39 and Action-40
15:14:53 <timeless> ... when one person formally objected to the document, after not having objected to the previous reading of the exact same document
15:14:57 <timeless> ... we spent two months on it
15:15:15 <timeless> ... If we receive input prior to AC review, it behooves us to try to find common ground
15:15:23 <timeless> ... to avoid formal objections
15:15:31 <timeless> ... why would we want to send a document which might have formal objections
15:15:37 <timeless> ... should we do it
15:15:54 <timeless> mike: so, w3c would formally object?
15:16:02 <timeless> ... this is taking consensus too far
15:16:14 <timeless> SteveZ: i don't think jeff is saying that
15:16:25 <timeless> ... i think he's saying a little more effort is worth it
15:16:35 <timeless> mike: i don't object to trying
15:16:44 <timeless> SteveZ: i happen to agree with mike
15:16:59 <timeless> ... we don't have to put this in the process, she can create a group
15:17:17 <timeless> mike: and if she's looking for a Club to beat these people, i don't think we should put it in the process
15:17:21 <timeless> jeff: i don't think that's fair mike
15:17:34 <timeless> ... i think we probably need to do more coordination (rather than less) between groups
15:17:46 <timeless> ... we have an entire task by Virginie on coordination
15:18:06 <timeless> ... we have an extremely active thread on process, started by annevk on coordinating security
15:18:20 <timeless> ... quite the contrary, it's very appropriate that we find better ways to coordinate in W3C
15:18:29 <timeless> ... just as coordination has always been part of the process
15:18:42 <timeless> ... if we had a better idea of how to do coordination, it should be part of the process
15:18:58 <timeless> ... the problem we have here is that Coordination-Groups has fallen into disuse
15:19:03 <timeless> mike: id'
15:19:15 <timeless> s/id'/i'd agree, /
15:19:31 <timeless> ... but chaals's argument is that Coordination-Groups burden the Process without helping
15:19:36 <timeless> ... who's in this?
15:19:43 <timeless> SteveZ: WAI
15:19:58 <jeff> s/task by Virginie/AB project led by Virginie/
15:20:02 <timeless> mike: the pushback on Coordination done in that group
15:20:10 <timeless> ... is "it's not early and technical enough"
15:20:24 <jeff> q+
15:20:24 <timeless> ... it's procedural, and not part of technical consensus building
15:20:32 <timeless> ... the fact that it's a Coordination-Group is part of the problem
15:20:45 <timeless> ... there isn't an incentive for people with the skillset to engage
15:21:02 <timeless> ... they, instead have a heavy handed objection process
15:21:09 <timeless> ... e.g. the formal objection to LONGDESC=
15:21:23 <timeless> ... i think we have to do it better, rather than doing the same thing
15:21:34 <timeless> ... i agree trying to find some solution w/ judy
15:21:42 <timeless> ... but i'd like to try to tweak the culture
15:21:47 <timeless> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:21:59 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:22:15 <timeless> SteveZ: i attended a P&F WG joint w/ CSS, and janina made the point that they're trying to do more reaching out
15:22:30 <timeless> jeff: to your point that WAI Coord-Group should do things better, i think that's a fair point
15:22:45 <timeless> ... by all means, if SteveZ + chaals talk w/ judy, let's use that to make the coordination better
15:22:56 <timeless> ... you also mentioned, mike, which seems to be unrelated
15:23:06 <timeless> ... you mentioned a formal objection to LONGDESC=
15:23:10 <timeless> ... that seems separate
15:23:15 <timeless> ... it's coming out by HTML WG
15:23:24 <timeless> ... led by several people, including PaulC (Microsoft)
15:23:29 <timeless> ... there was WG consensus
15:23:32 <timeless> ... Apple objected
15:23:40 <timeless> ... you may have some opinions about the objection
15:23:47 <timeless> ... but i don't know what that has to do w/ WAI
15:23:55 <timeless> mike: it wasn't an accessibility issue in another spec
15:24:15 <timeless> ... it was an objection about a spec for one attribute that is only about accessibility
15:24:20 <timeless> mike: fine, i accept the point
15:24:22 <timeless> q?
15:24:24 <timeless> q- jeff
15:24:32 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:24:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:25:04 <timeless> SteveZ: that's as much as we can do on that item
15:25:22 <timeless> ... i'd prefer to leave both action items open, i believe jeff+i are still in the process of talking
15:25:52 <timeless> SteveZ: i'll close XX, or at least move to pending-review
15:26:17 <timeless> ... jeff, you sent a note about the AB resolution
15:26:26 <timeless> ... that the modification of the election procedures
15:26:32 <timeless> ... the sentence is hard to parse, but
15:26:50 <jeff> [Jeff confesses that the English could have been much clearer]
15:27:00 <SteveZ> RESOLUTION: AB input to W3C process CG is that the modification to election procedures that in the case of a change of affiliation instead of requiring immediate resignation, we should allow the people to serve until the next regular election
15:27:19 <timeless> SteveZ: that's the resolution the AB passed
15:27:27 <timeless> ... it's in support of the text that i circulated
15:27:34 <timeless> ... i said i'd send out a CfC
15:27:37 <timeless> ... i forgot to do that
15:27:48 <timeless> ... i can action myself to send out the CfC on the text i proposed
15:27:55 <timeless> ... after i proposed it, there was no further discussion on the ML
15:28:12 <timeless> ... is that what you were looking for jeff?
15:28:20 <timeless> jeff: yes, we weren't trying to propose text
15:28:47 <timeless> ... to show support for the proposal
15:28:53 <timeless> ... there's also a proposal from DKA
15:28:58 <timeless> ... to have 2 people from the same org
15:29:13 <timeless> ... at this time, the AB does not have consensus, and hasn't taken a position on such a broader proposal
15:29:24 <timeless> SteveZ: that was my understanding, from the process list as well
15:29:52 <timeless> s/cahnges/changes/
15:29:59 <SteveZ> ACTION SteveZ: Send CfC on text proposed to fix the election process when a change of affliliation occurs
15:30:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Send cfc on text proposed to fix the election process when a change of affliliation occurs [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-25].
15:30:27 <timeless> timeless has changed the topic to: Revising the W3C Process
15:30:52 <SteveZ> Topic: 3.	Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review
15:31:09 <timeless> SteveZ: i sent out a bunch of text
15:31:55 <timeless> SteveZ: jeff pointed out that i had left out a pointer for a place to make announcements
15:32:02 <timeless> ... which we've created in the mean-time
15:32:02 <SteveZ> Chaals sent: Of the proposals in that mail I support numbers 1, 2, and the first proposed variant of 4, but oppose proposal 3.   With regards to naming the review list, I'm ambivalent but if we do it I prefer Steve's formulation.
15:32:07 <timeless> ... i sent out proposed text
15:32:29 <timeless> ... i asked chaals why he opposed 3
15:32:36 <timeless> ... i don't think i heard back on that
15:32:40 <timeless> ... i think jeff was fine
15:32:56 <timeless> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0132.html
15:33:08 <SteveZ> 1-4 refer to the message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html
15:33:20 <timeless> s|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0132.html||
15:34:08 <timeless> s|1-4 refer to the message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html "Issue-144 Suggested updates to clarify Wide Review in Process2014" 1-4 are in here|
15:34:20 <timeless> SteveZ: i propose we adopt 1, 2, and the first version of 4
15:34:36 <timeless> ... and then chaals can be more clear about his problem with 3
15:35:00 <timeless> ... any objections?
15:35:02 <timeless> [ None ]
15:35:12 <timeless> SteveZ: then, chaals supported my suggestion to add
15:36:11 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:36:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref (muted), Jay, Jeff, SteveZ, Mike_Champion
15:36:59 <SteveZ> Proposal: adopt the text I proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0132.html
15:37:27 <timeless> "have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example, using public-review-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org>) and ..."
15:37:38 <timeless> SteveZ: and chaals was in favor of that
15:37:52 <timeless> ... any objections?
15:37:54 <timeless> [ None ]
15:38:10 <timeless> RESOLUTION: "have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example, using public-review-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org>) and ..." will be added
15:38:14 <SteveZ> Topic: Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date
15:38:28 <timeless> SteveZ: chaals sent out text
15:38:33 <timeless> ... and he created an issue
15:39:00 <timeless> issue-145?
15:39:00 <trackbot> issue-145 -- Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc -- raised
15:39:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145
15:39:19 <timeless> s/an issue/an issue (145)/
15:39:29 <timeless> jeff: my view is that, we should close issue-145
15:39:53 <timeless> ... since this is really issue 140
15:40:00 <timeless> ... issue 140 is clean up all references to team
15:40:19 <timeless> ... i don't think we need different issues for the parts of 140 that chaals wants to solve, and the parts chaals doesn't want to solve
15:40:24 <timeless> SteveZ: i think i agree w/ you
15:40:32 <timeless> ... part of cleaning up the definition of team in team in 2.2
15:40:43 <timeless> ... means making sure all other references to Team make sense, given that cleanup
15:41:01 <timeless> ... in some cases, it may make sense by eliminating references
15:41:06 <timeless> ... but others may require work
15:41:36 <timeless> jeff: that sounds better than how i phrased it
15:42:43 <timeless> SteveZ: the text chaals proposed on nov 12
15:42:58 <timeless> ... has team consists of director, ceo, interns, staff, fellows
15:43:09 <timeless> ... director may delegate to others in team for roles described in document
15:43:29 <timeless> ... and administrative bits are team only, subject to host oversight
15:43:40 <timeless> ... and host institutions (link) to FAQ for w3c
15:43:52 <timeless> ... that's the entirety of the change
15:43:59 <timeless> ... it implies that Director may delegate
15:44:05 <timeless> ... it doesn't say that anyone else can delegate
15:44:15 <timeless> q+ to ask if we had something saying that anyone can delegate
15:44:29 <timeless> jeff: i'm trying to remember what the current document says on delegation
15:44:35 <timeless> ... i don't want to make changes in delegation rules
15:44:52 <timeless> ack me
15:44:54 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to ask if we had something saying that anyone can delegate
15:45:15 <timeless> Josh_Soref: we need an issue for process-2016 on delegation by anyone
15:45:21 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:45:21 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
15:45:40 <timeless> jeff: the current document says "these individuals (director, chair, ceo) may delegate responsibility"
15:46:09 <timeless> SteveZ: the text on the team consists of needs text on delegation for director  + ceo
15:46:24 <timeless> jeff: it's possible that chaals found nothing in process indicating roles for ceo to delegate
15:46:37 <timeless> ... i don't know if there's text in the document w/ formal roles for the ceo to delegate
15:46:44 <timeless> SteveZ: that was the main thing that i found
15:47:04 <timeless> ... he also did not include the line that the host orgs aren't members of w3c
15:47:13 <timeless> ... i don't know that that's necessary or not
15:47:23 <timeless> jeff: i think if the Process CG finds it in its heart not to include this line
15:47:31 <timeless> ... i think there's some benefit to the ambiguity
15:47:49 <timeless> ... ralph mentions that there have been times when host institutions have wanted to assign a W3C fellow to work for W3C for a year
15:48:06 <timeless> ... but since the right to assign a W3C Fellow is a Member privilege ...
15:48:08 <timeless> SteveZ: makes sense
15:48:24 <timeless> ... I assume that it was done on the principle that Host organizations could just assign people
15:48:35 <timeless> ... but Hosts may want to do that
15:48:54 <timeless> ... AC is big enough that hosts voting/not voting isn't going to make a difference
15:48:59 <timeless> s/fellow/Fellow/
15:49:21 <timeless> ... I think the text for 2.2 is probably fine as long as we answer the question about Director and CEO question
15:49:32 <timeless> ... and we just answered the question about Hosts are not members -- we don't need to say that
15:49:35 <timeless> ... i think the text is fine
15:49:42 <timeless> ... and we just need to go update the rest of the document
15:49:57 <timeless> ... i interpreted 145 as doing that, but when i looked at the text, it's not what it does
15:50:03 <timeless> ... i think it needs to be done as part of 140
15:50:12 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft mintues
15:50:12 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', timeless.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:50:16 <timeless> s/RRSAgent, draft mintues//
15:50:18 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:50:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:50:46 <timeless> SteveZ: jeff, you suggested closing 145
15:50:56 <timeless> jeff: i wouldn't close it in chaals's absence
15:51:36 <timeless> SteveZ: issue-148
15:51:58 <SteveZ> Topic: 4.	Issue-148: Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document
15:52:45 <SteveZ> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
15:53:11 <timeless> s|https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0133.html w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document [Process Document]|
15:53:23 <jeff> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0133.html
15:53:24 <timeless> SteveZ: there's a change
15:53:39 <timeless> s/SteveZ: there's a change//
15:53:43 <timeless> issue-148?
15:53:44 <trackbot> issue-148 -- Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document -- raised
15:53:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
15:53:46 <jeff> q+ to ask about where the agenda is being sent
15:54:17 <timeless>  "especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html">liaisons</a>,"
15:54:20 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
15:54:30 <timeless> SteveZ: any objections to the proposal?
15:54:32 <timeless> [ None ]
15:54:48 <timeless> RESOLUTION: incorporate proposal for issue-148
15:55:06 <timeless> SteveZ: i think it's time to get an updated draft of the document
15:55:15 <timeless> ... i'm not sure we have something to meet about until then
15:55:21 <timeless> ... depending on the conversation w/ judy
15:55:28 <timeless> jeff: we have judy, and cleanup for issue-140
15:55:33 <timeless> topic: Agenda mails
15:55:35 <timeless> ack jeff
15:55:35 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask about where the agenda is being sent
15:55:42 <timeless> SteveZ: i sent a note to jeremy
15:55:55 <timeless> ... i can send messages to the list, but i can't send agendas
15:56:02 <timeless> ... it seems to get forwarded, but not reliably
15:56:12 <timeless> jeff: you have complicated agendas w/ charts
15:56:17 <timeless> ... can you send a simple text version?
15:56:25 <timeless> SteveZ: yeah, i was thinking that might be the problem
15:56:33 <timeless> ... it's not getting archived, but it's getting forwarded
15:56:39 <timeless> ... my other messages get archived + forwarded
15:56:47 <timeless> jeff: i think jeremy should work on your issue to be done right
15:56:55 <timeless> ... but i'd encourage the chair to find a workaround in the interim
15:57:07 <timeless> ... so the entire w3process TF can find the process
15:57:10 <timeless> SteveZ: i agree
15:57:14 <timeless> ... i don't know who it's going to
15:57:19 <timeless> ... you go it, chaals got it
15:57:25 <timeless> jeff: but you're sending it to the AB
15:57:30 <timeless> ... perhaps that's where it's going?
15:57:34 <timeless> SteveZ: oh, interesting
15:57:52 <timeless> ... i'll try resending a simpler message of the agenda we followed this morning, and point to the minutes, and see if that one works
15:58:18 <timeless> jeff: on the question of other things to meet about
15:58:30 <timeless> ... we also need to review specific language for change of affiliation
15:58:41 <timeless> SteveZ: there is specific language proposed, that will go out, probably today
15:58:46 <timeless> jeff: at the next call, we can review that
15:59:01 <timeless> ... also, if the chair is of the opinion that we're reaching the end of issues for Process-2015
15:59:16 <timeless> ... then we should start thinking about our schedule for Wide-Review of the document to finish it up
15:59:29 <timeless> ... and then also assemble the larger issues for Process-2016
15:59:32 <timeless> SteveZ: yes
15:59:42 <timeless> ... from both what percolated up, and from the time, and where we are
15:59:53 <timeless> ... i think we are in fact running out of issues that need to be addressed for 2015
16:00:00 <timeless> jeff: are we done with errata management?
16:00:01 <timeless> SteveZ: no
16:00:09 <timeless> ... we sent a message to PSIG
16:00:12 <timeless> ... PSIG sent it out
16:00:30 <timeless> ... i can send a reminder to Scott saying that we'd like a reply ASAP (by Mid Jan)
16:00:47 <timeless> ... schedule is to have a complete document for AB Feb 11 F2F
16:00:52 <timeless> s/11/11-12/
16:01:01 <timeless> jeff: we probably want to send it ample time in advance
16:01:03 <timeless> ... Mid Jan
16:01:17 <timeless> ... telling scott we anticipate having a completed document by Mid jan
16:01:31 <timeless> ... so he needs comments in by beginning of Jan, to give us time to respond
16:01:35 <timeless> s/jan/Jan/
16:01:42 <timeless> SteveZ: i agree w/ that schedule
16:01:47 <timeless> ... i think chaals thinks it's too soon
16:01:50 <timeless> ... but given last year
16:01:53 <timeless> ... it's never too soon
16:02:00 <timeless> jeff: it isn't a question of too soon
16:02:12 <timeless> ... chaals is saying we have more time, and we could shoe-horn more stuff into 2015
16:02:20 <timeless> ... but, if we have no more issues, there's no need to delay
16:02:27 <timeless> ... i'd rather increase time for Wide-Review
16:02:44 <timeless> ... if have issues, let's get them on the table
16:02:46 <jeff> timeless ++
16:02:47 <timeless> ... if not, let's get it out
16:02:58 <timeless> SteveZ: thanks Josh for taking the minutes
16:03:01 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
16:03:06 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft mintues
16:03:06 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', timeless.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:03:09 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:03:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:03:12 <timeless> Zakim, unmute me
16:03:13 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
16:03:13 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:04:06 <timeless> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0139.html
16:04:09 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:04:46 <timeless> trackbot, end conf
16:04:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:04:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Josh_Soref, Jeff, SteveZ, Jay, Mike_Champion
16:04:51 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:04:52 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
16:04:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:04:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
16:04:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:04:55 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-actions.rdf :
16:04:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SteveZ to Send CfC on text proposed to fix the election process when a change of affliliation occurs [1]
16:04:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-w3process-irc#T15-29-59
16:04:58 <Zakim> -Jay
16:04:59 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
16:04:59 <Zakim> Attendees were Josh_Soref, Jeff, SteveZ, Jay, Mike_Champion