W3C Process CG -- 13 Sep 2017

<scribe> scribenick: wseltzer

dsinger: agenda-bashing?

2) Bulk confirmation of Consensus that these are addressed as requested and can be closed. I do not intend to go one by one here unless requested.

dsinger: we're looking for consensus in process CG that we have something good enough to send to the AC for comments
... current thinking, addresses issues
... not perfection yet

jeff__: and share with AB a week from Thurs before sharing with AC

dsinger: a bunch of editorial stuff
... or substantive and addressed
... [as in agenda]
... if you don't speak up, your silence will be taken as approval

<chaals> [I am happy with all of those]

virginia: #13 language differs substantially from what I submitted. Why?
... it has lots of pronouns with unclear referents

dsinger: it's in the gh issue

virginia: I'll send suggested changes
... clarifying references
... Q about 26
... is "affiliate" being defined?

dsinger: no, we removed the mention of Affiliates; it's just a term the team uses

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/13

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=label%3AProcess2018Candidate%20

Minor Discussion

<chaals> [prefer the updated amended rec defn. But likely to suggest a minor tweak still]

<chaals> [As noted in the issue I think we can leave the other pieces as practice rather than putting them in the process]

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/93/files

<dsinger> <dd>An <dfn id="rec-amended">Amended Recommendation</dfn> is a Recommendation that is amended to include <a href="#correction-classes">substantive

<dsinger> changes that do not add new features</a>, and is produced by the W3C at a time when the Recommendation does not fit

<dsinger> within the charter of any active Working Group.</dd>

wseltzer: we need to run this change by PLH to see that it still meets his maintenance needs

virginia: we feel strongly that new features need new exclusion opportunities

dsinger: We need a tool for AC to say "this is a new feature, it needs a WG"

<dsinger> (I am fine with making this listed as part of AC discussion)

mchampion: we need to be explicit that this is not for changes

jeff__: Agreed that Amended Recs are not for new features
... but I'm not seeing the changes concretely

dsinger: problem that the originally proposed text merely linked to "substantive changes"
... and failed to exclude new features

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to agree with Wendy about the concern, and say I think we should ask the AC to consider this question explicitly

chaals: I think we should put through the text that's there, highlight the issue for the AC
... I think allowing W3C to add new features is a big thing, AC should discuss

wseltzer: I was hoping to get PLH's review.

dsinger: #30

chaals: done

dsinger: #29
... leaving it with the editor

Agendum 3

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/23

dsinger: #23 Director can dismiss a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?

chaals: I think we're close

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24

dsinger: 24

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/24

mchampion: it's worth discussing; not critical to resolve

chaals: setting a basic default
... proposed change is by default the chair must write down formal objections, must give notice of the vote and allow async voting

dsinger: #33, 60-day language

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/33

jeff__: I'd like to resolve this

dsinger: I think we're there

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/34

dsinger: #34

<dsinger> take to AC, discuss

chaals: where the discussion is going, looks as though formal review will open at PR; CR announcement should encourage input

dsinger: e.g., I wouldn't agree to this as a PR

chaals: yes, tell us at CR, if this is a non-starter

dsinger: #48, appeals

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/48

dsinger: I prepared a PR

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/77

dsinger: take to the AC two questions of simple majority or supermajority, qualification to vote

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/52

dsinger: #52
... any more discussion?

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63

dsinger: #63

chaals: PR 39

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/39

chaals: PR was that team can request public review of charter
... I've said please don't
... believe team does this anyway, because it's not forbidden by process
... AC rep can say what they like about public document, in public

<chaals> scribe: chaals

WS: Hear encouragment that it is usefuil to have the non-public channels
... we are draftong charters in public

<dsinger> question: when a charter is sent to the AC for formal review, is it publicly visible or not?

WS: it is helpful to facilitate this. I think the question should remain open, and process shouyld acknowledge any of those channels might be appropriate for feedback.

DS: Is a charter visible when it is sent for review?

WS: Our practice is yes.

<wseltzer> wseltzer: our practice is for charters sent to the AC to be public

DS: Allowing public comment on a non-public document would be mad. Not sure we are reaching consensus...

VF: What is the objective in making review public?

DS: Change is to allow an AC member to make their own comment public. Concern is we are exposing internal business, and that quoted comments may be publishing somethig that should be kept in confidence.

VF: Why make those comments public?

WS: Some members have their internal discussion in a public environment
... so why not let them point to those in W3C space?

VF: Is this for more than just 1 member?

WS: Team have been noting that it would be helpful for them to be able to point to the public dialogue to explain themselves.

DS: And part of a general trend toward openness.
... Can live with public comments if the charter is public.
... and trust that AC reps know how to keep confidences.

VF: Envisioning a situation where the EFF takes off on some member's comment.

DS: Where are we up to?

<dsinger> are we going to formalize in the process that the team can allow AC members ot make their comments public?

<scribe> scribe: wenbdy

<scribe> scribe: wseltzer

chaals: I don

<mchampion> agree with chaals, -1. I don't think there's a problem here that needs to be solved in the process document

chaals: 't think we need to say "things you say can be public"
... I do not support this change
... and I think team should not make charter reviews public

<dsinger> I share Chaals’ concerns about building public positions

chaals: I'd like process to forbid what they're doing, actually

<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to discuss taking this to AC discussion

dsinger: we're not landing this one

jeff__: I don't think we even need to discuss with AC
... hold for Process 2019

<dsinger> propose we ask the AB for guidance…

<dsinger> on #63, we ask the AB for guidance and otherwise hold to next rev.

dsinger: AB should know that Process CG thinks they're in good enough shape to send doc to AC

<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to comment on item #4 of David's agenda

jeff__: subject to AB review, I agree
... but disagree with characterization in agendum 4
... after AB approval, Jeff as chair of AB

dsinger: so we should start drafting backgrounder in CG list, and then take it to AB from whence it comes
... consensus that it's time to take to AB

next meeting

jeff__: we could talk at the AB F2F
... with apologies to Virginia

dsinger: AOB?

jeff__: salute the terrific efforts of the chair and editor

<tink> +1 (and then some)

[adjourned]

rrsaget, draft minutes

- DRAFT -

W3C Process CG

13 Sep 2017

Attendees

Contents

2) Bulk confirmation of Consensus that these are addressed as requested and can be closed. I do not intend to go one by one here unless requested.

Minor Discussion

Agendum 3

next meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output