<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting

<dsinger> greetings, morning

<scribe> scribe: natasha

<dsinger> welcome to the incoming editor

<dsinger> thanks to the outgoing editor

dsinger: welcome to the new editor, natasha
... process 2018 now in effect, so didn't make changes whilst we were working on 2018
... time now to get moving on new edits
... natasha, get started on editorial

natasha: yes I'll get started

dsinger: natasha, please start on pull requests
... most of them are from chaals

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/ABProcess2019Candidate

issue candidates for 2019

dsinger: living standards, two issues: how we manage registries, modernize and handle specs in the WhatWG style

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

+1

mchampion: question about snapshot issue

dsinger: will discuss in AB
... every revision in github is a static document

<dsinger> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2018_Priorities

<dsinger> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2018_Priorities#Living_Standards

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/117

dsinger: I am the person on the AB responsible for this, so I will drive it forward
... #117

<dsinger> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#general-requirements

natasha: secuity, privacy, internationalisation and accessibility considerations in each document

virginia: concerned whether people will just use boilerplate

natasha: it'll be up to the reviewers to review

dsinger: do we want this in the process

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/118

natasha: TAG election and appointment process is not doing what it states currently, but this is probably a discussion for AB not the process CG for now

dsinger: we'll close this and move to AB

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22Editorial+improvements%22+-label%3Aquestion+-label%3AABProcess2019Candidate

<dsinger> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22Editorial+improvements%22+-label%3Aquestion+-label%3AABProcess2019Candidate>

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2

non-AB non editorial issues

dsinger: #2, joint working group deliverables

<dsinger> most recent comment was “It does not seem that any process requirements are needed to enable this, as we do this now. At most we could clarify, but that's not urgent.”

virginia: thought we said "if the deliverable was mentioned in charter of both WGs then we are ok with this"

dsinger: can we close this?

<dsinger> assigned to Leonie : https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/2

mchampion: not keen, as can be seen as an IPR dodge

dsinger: closing this, as no one seems keen to keep this open

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/9

dsinger: #9, represent more than one organisation

virginia: think we decding to leave the language the same till there was an actual issue

dsinger: no one seems to watch to change anything, so close
... #38 charter reviews on public channel

natasha: I've heard enthusiasm for transparency from the community

<dsinger> notes that this is linked to #63 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/63 which is a 2018Candidate and an AB 2019 candidate

virginia: transparency isn't defined, people need to specifiy what they want

natasha: agree

<dsinger> we ask the community to comment on their transparency needs on #38 and #63

natasha: i'll email dan

<dsinger> and #39

dsinger: #47

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/47

dsinger: no other candidate

mchampion: this may be an AB issue

dsinger: i agree

<dsinger> Process CG feels we should leave it with the AB and team at the moment

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/54

dsinger: #54, allow representation of multiple members
... duplicate

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/76

dsinger: #76, Should there be good standing / supermajority criteria in authoritative ballots?

mchampion: chances of getting consensus minimal

<tantek> BTW, my nomination for a Process 2019 change: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/165 (sorry I can't be on the phone, already on the phone with #css wg telcon).

dsinger: ok, not taking it up

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/83

dsinger: #83 Written notification?
... think it was suggested that the notification should be recorded some way
... get chaals to do some clean up here

tink: recorded is a good word,
... suggest we use that

+1 for candidate

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/101

dsinger: #101 Updated for accuracy

natasha: suggest to close, no information from the requester for over 4 months

dsinger: Should the process allow REC->WD transition directly? #103

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/103

natasha: seems drastic, maybe we should leave till this becomes a problem

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/107

dsinger: Audit of Members / Quorum? #107
... there is a problem with "zombies" in the AC

tink: the team should contact members and discover whether their AC rep is who they think it is!

natasha: may need to push this back into the team via the AB

dsinger: process cg doesn't seem to think this is a process question

<tantek> this is a process issue because the team is neglecting it

dsinger: We need to consider equal-preference voting #115

<tantek> thus if you care about it it needs fixing in the process

dsinger: do not believe this is a process change

<tantek> #107 that is

dsinger: Process should say how W3T can update NOTES #120

mchampion: what's the use case of updating a note

<tantek> errata

<tantek> and correcting downright factually false assertions

natasha: use case for state of web on mobile

mchampion: could just make a new note

<tantek> problem is people still link to and find the old misleading note

dsinger: asking ralph to suggest some text

<tantek> IMO this is part of "clean up TR"

<dsinger> next meeting overlaps AB

<dsinger> next meeting is 21st, next week

dsinger: anyone want to comment on their issues?
... #17 going to link process and CG process

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/28

dsinger: Substantive changes undefined for Charter and Process reviews #28

natasha: I can do this

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/157

mchampion: what are they testing?
... many things to consider

<dsinger> sort-of related to #117 (requirements for security, privacy etc.)?

<dsinger> I also think that this relates to the (manual) pain of “wide review”

mchampion: tests for interoperability, meet use cases, accessibility...

dsinger: related to #117

mchampion: process could be streamlined here
... tink could manage this, ask her on next meeting

dsinger: got as far as #120
... pick up at #130

<dsinger> pick up next week at #130

<wseltzer> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: dsinger, virginia, tink, natasha, mchampion
Present: dsinger virginia tink natasha mchampion
Regrets: wseltzer jeff tantek
Found Scribe: natasha
Inferring ScribeNick: natasha

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 14 Feb 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)