Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 13 Feb 2019

<jeff> scribe: jeff

David: Congrats on P2019
... noone voted against it
... Florian, tell us about Bikeshed, tagging, bots, etc.

FR: Topic: Scribing bot
... The bot recognizes topics
... then it can consider a discussion as associated with an issue
... provides links to github; we can find things later

e.g.

Scribing bot

github: url

to a url issue

FR: I converted to bikeshed
... automatic publish to github io
... mostly markdown
... tell me if any problems
... just source code in repo
... generate local version of spec before committing
... installing bikeshed should not be hard
... windows, mac, linux, android
... tell me about problems

<dsinger> looking at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/blob/master/index.bs I see lots of indenting and pretty-printing. manually done? required?

FR: easier maintenance of source
... automatic compilations of definitions
... looks nice

Labels

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: this helps with organizing calls
... just looking at item that is not moving does not help a lot
... other labels are obvious

DoC label

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: used by editor
... the rest of us may ignore
... for distribution of comments

DS: What about the really nice layout

FR: Done manually
... I recommend it
... readable
... not needed by bikeshed

DS: Use that formatting on pull requests

FR: Process <y#> label. I find it confusing.
... I suggest we stop using labels

<natasha> +1 for using projects

FR: use github project instead

<natasha> ormilestones

<cwilso> Why project rather than milestone?

FR: put into Process 2020 for this year's work
... rest in Process 2021
... Does that work?

DS: Don't see a problem

CW: Why CG project rather than milestone?

FR: Didn't seem more involved
... past has had overlap
... Process 2019; P2019 Candidate; AB 2019

CW: Labels are probably not the right choice
... Milestones are good.
... they say where we deal with something

FR: I've never used milestones so I went with labels

DS: That's a useful piece.
... can we take management minutiae offline?
... Qs?

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Agenda%2B

Topic Pull requests and agenda +'s

scribe: #247

Remove extraneous phrasing

<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/247

scribe: no need to be polite
... so delete "please note"

missing auxiliary

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/240

[FR: reads PR]

Decision: Leave until next call, then integrate.

<cwilso> LGTM

DS: Objections to integrate 240 and 247 now?
... I take this as consent.

WDs are incorrectly characterized in 6.2.1

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/235

DS: Consensus of the WG is that it is the WD

FR: In GH there have been 2 or 3 iterations
... WDs do not necessarily represent consensus of WG or endorsement by W3C
... but WG is publishing for wide review
... This is in GH so it does not need to be scribed
... specific in the comment from me 7 days ago (scribe note, presumably that is 6 February)

DS: Comments?
... I would like to add after nevertheless... "this is the draft the WG is working on and should be reviewed"

<dsinger> after "Nevertheless the Working Group has" I would like to add "agreed that this is the draft they are working on and "

<florian> jeff: wondering if dsinger can make his comment in github, so that others can review offline

DS: Roughly the right track?
... anyone mind adding this

<florian> jeff: I don't mind any of these changes, but I want to point out that trying to be always more precise tends to make the document longer, and we should be careful not to be too verbose.

<mchampion> +1 to Jeff's point

DS: Perhaps we should add an issue to make the document more succinct
... leave it for next month.

<florian> scribe: florian

Living Standards

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

<jeff> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards

jeff: At the last AB meeting, the AB approved to move the discussion about living standards to the process cg on the basis of the document linked above
... this proposes creating a new track for specs
... the document mixes explanation, motivation, process, etc
... the document is poorly suited to being a pull request
... but we need a strategy to socialize this
... and we need to think of a way to turn this conceptual document into process text that could be proposed as a pull request

<jeff> FR: The AB agreed to push this into Process CG space

<jeff> ... worthy of discussion

<jeff> ... not unanimity that this was a good idea to do

<jeff> ... but at least a good idea to explore

<jeff> ... some like myself and Chaals are not yet sold

<Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to ask whether we see the Evergreen standards process as part of the Process Document or akin to the Community Group process that lives outside it

<jeff> MC: ^^

<jeff> MC: Is it like CGs

<jeff> ... but in that case we never integrated them

<jeff> ... no strong feeling, but at least a question

<jeff> DS: For CGs we needed to keep separate because open to public

<jeff> ... Process for Member stuff

<jeff> ... on ways ahead:

<jeff> ... PSIG for IPR

<jeff> ... Process CG folks should read the wiki

<jeff> ... Socialize it at AC meeting

<jeff> ... assess AC support

<jeff> ... for document structure; this is an alternative to section 6.

<jeff> ... should be an annex while experimental

<jeff> ... PSIG should do the same

<mchampion> +1 keeping it as an annex to the process and PP

<jeff> ... so I and Jeff need to convert this discursive discussion into actual process text

florian: we did discuss this in the AB, and agree to move the disucssion to the process cg on the basis on that document, but I want to note that there was not unanimity on whether it was a good idea. Notably, at least chaals and myself though that adding this alternative track was a bad idea, but we did agree that it should be discussed in the open.

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to Mike

<jeff> Jeff: +1 to Dave on experimental

<tzviya> +1 jeff

<jeff> ... needs to be in Process doc since we are conferring status

<jeff> ... need much wider review than just AC - not clear how to get that done

<Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to talk about patent policy

<mchampion> The most efficient way to get patent policy language is by having W3C attorney(s) work with member attorneys offline, then take a concrete proposal to PSIG for thumbs up/down

<jeff> Jeff: +1

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about Registries

<jeff> DS: Please also read the related topic of "registries"

<jeff> ... matches GH issue

<Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to ask how we come to consensus on whether this is actually a good idea

<jeff> MC: ^^^

<jeff> DS: We need a plusses and minuses doc

<jeff> MC: What you said

<jeff> ... an explainer

<jeff> ... elevator pitches

<jeff> DS: Good idea

wfm

<jeff> ... Jeff and my action

<jeff> TS: Broader communication

<jeff> ... explainer is a great idea

<jeff> ... could send to AC and chairs

<jeff> ... blog post

<jeff> ... explicitly ask people (e.g. chairs) to forward

<jeff> ... needs explainer first

<jeff> DS: Need 1. Motivation

<jeff> ... Explainer

<jeff> ... 3. Plusses and minusses

<jeff> ... 4. Lawyers

<jeff> ... 5. Ready to talk at AC meeting

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2020Candidate

Process 2020 candidates

<jeff> FR: I consider #28 assigned to myself

<jeff> DS: I should ping LW and WS for #130

<jeff> DS: Natasha, can you take #157

<jeff> NR: Yes, working with PLH

<jeff> DS: #168, please look at wiki

<jeff> DS: #173, actively on the table at the AB

<jeff> ... Jeff do you agree?

<jeff> Jeff: I agree it is on the table at the AB

<jeff> MC: Can we get this done for 2020?

<jeff> DS: I think we can make substantial progress

<jeff> ... cleanup

<jeff> ... but we may not complete the job

<jeff> FR: Are we in general agreement that I can make a pull request

<jeff> ... removing gratuitous requests

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/182

<jeff> Jeff: Certainly can make pull requests, but may not be ready to implement them yet.

<jeff> DS: #182 assigned to FR.

<jeff> FR: Yes; after #28

<jeff> DS: #223 is actively being discussed by the AB; should leave it there for now

<jeff> ... Jeff do you agree?

<jeff> Jeff: Yes.

https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+project%3Aw3c%2Fw3process%2F1+-label%3AProcess2020Candidate

<jeff> FR: I have triaged a bunch into the Project 2020 project

<Zakim> mchampion, you wanted to discuss the meta-question of timing, success criteria

<jeff> MC: Are we committed to a process document once per year, or more success oriented

<jeff> ... seeing so little participation

<jeff> ... only 3% voting at all

<jeff> ... we should at least ask what the success criteria are

<jeff> ... we should make a conscious decision

<jeff> ... not a great deal of enthusiam

<jeff> DS: I'll take the action to notify the AC.

<jeff> ... people can comment asynchronously

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to propose that we drop the 2020 label from #60

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say I'd like to see more NON-AB on this call

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60

<mchampion> +1 to dropping issue 60, it is irresolveable

<jeff> Jeff: In answer to Mike, I think we should be success oriented

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to mchampion

<jeff> FR: A yearly update is tricky

<jeff> ... a delay was unfortunate

<jeff> ... low response was unfortunate

<jeff> ... as editor I joined late

<jeff> ... hope to do more this year

<jeff> ... large pile of small fixes are worthwhile

<jeff> ... avoid holiday season

<cwilso> strong +1 to avoiding holidays

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest fatigue is a real issue

<jeff> CW: +1 to avoid holiday season

<jeff> ... regular cycle is a good idea

<jeff> ... easier to keep on regular cycle

<jeff> ... what kind of issues do you want

<jeff> ... half the issues "need AB feedback"

<jeff> ... looks like you want the discussion in the AB

<jeff> ... harder to get others involved

<jeff> ... we need more not on the AB

<jeff> ... only 2 of us

<jeff> ... problematic

<jeff> DS: Mike do you want to make your point?

<jeff> MC: ^^

<jeff> DS: Don't want Process doc like patent policy - sacred item that cannot be touched.

<jeff> ... next meeting 13 March

<jeff> ... April call should be rescheduled

<jeff> [adjourned]

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2019

Attendees

Contents