<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196
dsinger: pull requests
... from the top
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199
natasha: proposal to clarify
language re obsolete/superceded
... clarify that a Rec can be both superseded and
obsolete
... and director request, submit to AC
<schuki> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/199/files
natasha: in the second place, I
haven't used MUST/MAY
... does it always have to go to AC for review
... whether the Dir or anyone else proposes, must send to AC
for review
florian: would be better if it
were Team who must submit to AC review
... rather than creating new dependency on Director
jeff__: disagree
<dsinger> I agree that the current phrase is “The director does…” meaning the team
jeff__: I'd rather make all the
Director-related changes at once
... leave this with "Director" until we do a deeper
revision
dsinger: +1 for consistency
tink: A spec can be both Rescinded and Superseded?
natasha: I meant "superseded and obsolete"
dsinger: good to go
... 197
natasha: editorial, but a typo
florian: relatively
unimportant
... don't think we need to change
... if we're trying to be clearer about definitions, then
should convert doc to bikeshed to use its automated tools
natasha: trying to address 86 re duplication of text
tink: use abbr tag every time,
and expand the first time
... and use a glossary of terms and defs
florian: bikeshed will do both
natasha: opened another issue re acronyms and terms
florian: don't fix one standalone
tink: it's a matter of readability
natasha: am I wrapping more than just "NOTE"?
tink: NOTE isn't an abbreviation
<natasha> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/197/files
florian: and there are other defined things
<jeff__> [NOTE appears to be the formal shortening of Working Group Note]
tink: take that out
natasha: then close with no
change
... continue discussion in Issue 198
dsinger: Non-mmember license commitment
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/196
dsinger: as we accept comments
from the outside world
... can we improve the license commitments for contributions
from non-members
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
<florian> queuing to echo the question asked by dsinger in the issue: clarify the need for excluding error correction (and what that actually means)
wseltzer: reading PR and
explaining from the issue
... error correction
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to discuss 5.2.1.3
dsinger: I wanted to say "ask"
for error correction, and require for all others
... lest we not even ask for a major change
<jeff_> [I seem to have dropped. Will redial.]
virginia: PSIG discussed what if
we ask for commitment but doesn't get
... do we include the changes or not?
... error correction exception was added out of concern that
we'd be over-restricting
... to give some discretion in determining whether error
correction fits classes 3 or 4
dsinger: it may be indeed substantive
virginia: right, error correction does change compliance
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to discuss @@
jeff_: editorial comment
... urge not to put the entire policy in the Prcess Doc
... e.g. in 5.2.1.3, we talk about IE agreement
... without putting the terms into the document
... link to what they agree to
... 4-line description should not be in the doc
dsinger: I want at least the
lines that we must ask
... so the first sentence remains
... where we still have questions, and have to discuss what
happens if we don't
... what shall we do about the error case?
florian: a bug-fix is still
normative; it is substantive
... problem is that "error correction" goes beyond
... problem is that the text requires more than ask, it
requires team to secure commitment
... so it requires we reject change if the person says no,
because we've failed to secure
... if we change to request, then it leaves flexibility
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
dsinger: look at my long comment from 12 days ago
florian: must request for class 3; must secure for class 4
virginia: class 3 could have new
material, that's why we wanted "secure" there too
... since it could leave IP vulnerability
... and it's the implementers and users who bear the risk
dsinger: how do we include major error correction but exclude trivial
<florian> +1 to david's point
dsinger: I hear Jeff and Wendy
suggesting leaving to practice rather than formalizing it all
in the document
... proposal on the table, must request for class 3, and secure
for class 4
... can we live with that?
<florian> w-
wseltzer: I can live with that
dsinger: remove "error
correction
... phrase, and ^
... update PR
wseltzer: I'll do that
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/67
dsinger: let's discuss in github
florian: I've found problems, but they need fixing, not discussion
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187
jeff_: chaals seems to have a problem
florian: we agree on not breaking the links
natasha: I implemented Fuqiao's
suggestion
... but then florian spotted bugs
jeff_: I'd want chaals's eyes on it, so I'll ping him
florian: aim is to fix his issue
dsinger: 186
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/187
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/186
natasha: I need to look at files
changed
... [reads text]
florian: problem is application of the word "immediately"
dsinger: previously, it included too many change of affiliation
florian: it still says vacated immediately
dsinger: if you end up with 2
people from same company, it should trigger immediate
resignation
... if it's a different change, should vacate at next
election
jeff_: same question as
Florian
... this PR still hasn't changed since your question
natasha: we may be ok to
close
... without applying the PR
dsinger: agree we should close
<jeff_> +1 to closing
dsinger: any objections to closing?
natasha: open a new issue if you
have a cleanup to propose
... closing
florian: I have a different propsoal
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181
dsinger: discuss at next call
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176
dsinger: Affiliatiion issue
...
/github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181//github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/176#issuecomment-410828059
florian: do you mean the company to which you're consulting or your own consultancy?
dsinger: co to which you're consulting
florian: please clarify in the text
dsinger: Is team ok to take that action?
jeff_: I'd give it a zero
... I don't know what problem it solves
... I don't object, but it seems odd
dsinger: cwilso thought if we were going to rest formal rules on "affiliation", we should define affiliation
jeff_: evergreen!
... there are other important areas of process to address
florian: for me, I have some support because it adds a bit of clarity that's useful
natasha: affiliation can be more
than employment
... which is lost in this definition
... e.g. having a high number of shares in an org
... notwithstanding, I'm pro including this as-is
tink: this is all far too
complicated
... people are elected to AB as individuals
... change of affiliation is important but as a matter of
disclosure
... term means different things in different contexts
dsinger: can you please add alternate text?
tink: AB is elected as individual; TAG as organization rep
florian: it says that, but it
also says stand at next election if your affiliation
change
... if it moves to conflict, that's too strict
dsinger: not agreed to merge
jeff_: as to whether team would
support, I don't know until I submit to W3M
... in response to your question above
<dsinger> #176 goes (a) for further discission and (b) to the team for analysis
dsinger: next call Sept. 12
... last call for PRs
jeff_: I think we should work
hard to get evergreeen standards into the next process
rev
... and so we should set deadlines based on that input, rather
than TPAC
... calendar
dsinger: please work on issues between calls
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to answer whether it is OK with the team.
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) Succeeded: s/?// Succeeded: s/it is/it may be/ Succeeded: s/5.2.1.3/@@/ Succeeded: s/@@/5.2.1.3/ Succeeded: s/reading https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/181/ Succeeded: s/roles/rules/ Present: jeff wseltzer dsinger mchampion florian Léonie No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: wseltzer Inferring Scribes: wseltzer WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2018Aug/0001.html Found Date: 15 Aug 2018 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 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]