IRC log of w3process on 2019-09-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

06:24:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #w3process
06:24:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-w3process-irc
06:24:53 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make logs public
06:32:07 [yoshiaki]
yoshiaki has joined #w3process
07:04:35 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
07:15:16 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
07:21:46 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
07:21:58 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
07:22:32 [nigel_]
nigel_ has joined #w3process
07:29:46 [CharlesHall]
CharlesHall has joined #w3process
07:29:48 [Lauriat_]
Lauriat_ has joined #w3process
07:30:32 [CharlesHall]
present+
07:30:50 [Rachel]
Rachel has joined #w3process
07:30:51 [astearns]
astearns has joined #w3process
07:31:35 [yoshiaki]
yoshiaki has joined #w3process
07:31:59 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
07:33:04 [Mek]
Mek has joined #w3process
07:35:24 [dsinger]
present+ dsinger
07:35:25 [yofukami]
yofukami has joined #w3process
07:35:30 [Rachel]
present+
07:35:34 [plh]
plh has joined #w3process
07:35:35 [nigel]
present+ NIgel_Megitt
07:35:42 [Mek]
present+
07:35:42 [plh]
present+
07:35:44 [tantek]
tantek has joined #w3process
07:35:44 [cb]
cb has joined #w3process
07:35:47 [cwilso]
Present+
07:35:48 [plh]
scribeNick: plh
07:35:50 [florian]
present+
07:35:51 [Lauriat]
Present+
07:35:53 [cb]
present+
07:36:02 [tantek]
present+
07:36:04 [nigel]
s/NIgel/Nigel
07:36:08 [Bert]
Bert has joined #w3process
07:36:11 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes public
07:36:11 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', tantek. Try /msg RRSAgent help
07:36:19 [jdai]
jdai has joined #w3process
07:36:31 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make logs public
07:36:32 [plh]
Florian: plh and fantasai gave a presentation on continuous development
07:36:34 [pal_]
pal_ has joined #w3process
07:36:54 [plh]
Florian: (presenting the github repo)
07:37:00 [fantasai]
https://github.com/w3c/w3process
07:37:09 [JoeAndrieu]
JoeAndrieu has joined #w3process
07:37:39 [plh]
... everblue/evergreen
07:37:54 [plh]
David: director-free isn't a Process 2020 but is a longer term project
07:38:10 [plh]
Fantasai: improving the REC-track
07:38:19 [dsinger]
Note that Director-free is a longer term exploration of what the Process might look like in the absence of a Director
07:38:22 [plh]
... nice to have patent licensing apply earlier
07:38:25 [plh]
... CR or like
07:38:31 [plh]
... number of use cases to improve the process
07:38:36 [plh]
... foals
07:38:43 [plh]
... simplify maintenance
07:38:43 [jdai]
jdai has left #w3process
07:38:45 [tantek]
s/foals/goals
07:39:00 [plh]
... [Fantasai keeps going through the slides]
07:39:40 [jeff]
jeff has joined #w3process
07:39:46 [plh]
... proposal: update the patent policy, streamlining CR updates, and REC updates
07:39:55 [plh]
... and add a dedicated registry process
07:40:04 [NJ_]
NJ_ has joined #w3process
07:40:44 [plh]
... slides are at https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/TPAC/continuous-standards/
07:41:07 [pal_]
q+
07:41:27 [plh]
ack pal
07:42:09 [plh]
Pierre: if the contribution doesn't make it in the full spec, there is no commitment, right?
07:42:40 [plh]
David: the commitment would be indeed if it becomes part of the spec
07:42:43 [cwilso]
Q-
07:42:51 [cwilso]
Q+
07:43:14 [plh]
... if the contribution doesn't make into the final spec, you only get the commitment to an early version
07:43:46 [plh]
Florian: the patent policy of whatwg was derived from the CGs, and we're deriving it from it
07:43:58 [plh]
Pierre: not everybody will be happy with it
07:44:39 [plh]
Florian: when you retire a spec, it's the same.
07:45:03 [plh]
David: as long as you can point that you implemented that version, you'll be fine.
07:45:18 [plh]
... chances that people will sue for implemting CR versions wil be low.
07:45:22 [fantasai]
s/retire/rescind/
07:45:31 [plh]
Pierre: here it says on each contribution
07:45:46 [plh]
... is a pull request a document?
07:46:04 [plh]
Fantasai: it would have to be published on /TR, not just a nightly draft
07:46:10 [plh]
... details are still being worked out
07:46:14 [dsinger]
I’m assuming that the commitment to contributions would be similar to the one we ask of non-WG members; that you get a license to the contributor’s IPR if you implement the draft that integrated it.
07:46:23 [plh]
... join PSIG to make your opinion
07:46:49 [plh]
Florian: given that this is in the WHATWG policy, it seems a signal that it is acceptable
07:46:50 [dsinger]
Indeed, if the feature doesn’t survive into Rec. you will not get full-spec. coverage that includes that feature.
07:47:08 [florian]
q?
07:47:15 [plh]
Pierre: this is not a proper assumption imho
07:47:21 [dsinger]
q?
07:47:26 [dsinger]
ack cwil
07:48:06 [plh]
Chris: I would not compare this to the whatwg policy, because the workstreams are setup differently. a PR doesn't get merge until it stays in the spec
07:48:42 [plh]
... but I would say that the goal is to not let you iterate without assurances on commitments
07:48:49 [plh]
... the time period can be a decade
07:49:07 [plh]
Pierre: in the case of whatwg, there is a very defined process....
07:49:14 [dsinger]
q?
07:49:38 [plh]
chris: they managed their workstreams differently. it would be an improvement for w3c to update its patent policy nevertheless
07:49:43 [vivien]
vivien has joined #w3process
07:50:00 [plh]
Fantasai: the point is getting commitments earlier in the process
07:50:26 [plh]
.... [streamlining routine CR update approvals]
07:50:58 [tantek]
This is a really good set of improvements (streamlining routine CR update approvals)
07:51:13 [dsinger]
q+ to ask what this “routine” is? and how does someone decide what constitutes “routine”?
07:52:00 [plh]
Travis: so, we have currently to do horizontal reviews, etc. the proposal is that ...
07:52:18 [plh]
Florian: having done it once, you document this and you can publish
07:52:34 [plh]
Travis: oh, so you're not locking again on a second review?
07:52:37 [plh]
Florian: correct
07:52:59 [plh]
Fantasai: as long as you didn't make change that would require updating the review
07:53:06 [plh]
David: but who decide that?
07:53:24 [plh]
Fantasai: details will be decided by the implementation
07:54:01 [jorydotcom]
jorydotcom has joined #w3process
07:54:05 [tantek]
q?
07:54:11 [tantek]
ack dsinger
07:54:11 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to ask what this “routine” is? and how does someone decide what constitutes “routine”?
07:54:14 [jorydotcom]
present+
07:54:18 [plh]
Florian: two parts of routine: we're not going to define how to make HR happy, you just don't have to spend continuously call for reviews. you just have to demonstrate that it happened
07:54:24 [plh]
q+
07:54:54 [nigel]
plh: From the point of view of the Horizontal Groups, there's a wish to move away from the quality control aspects to one
07:55:07 [nigel]
.. where you come as early as possible.
07:55:21 [nigel]
.. The role is to allow WGs to go to HR groups as early as possible.
07:55:35 [nigel]
.. So that it's easy to check the box on applying for transition
07:55:45 [nigel]
i/plh/scribe: nigel
07:55:47 [nigel]
scribe: plh
07:55:55 [plh]
David: who gets to police if the Group did things right?
07:56:11 [plh]
Fantasai: the Group needs to document and if they get caught, the publication can be revoked
07:56:19 [dsinger]
ack ds
07:56:58 [dsinger]
ack plh
07:57:00 [tantek]
q?
07:57:09 [plh]
Floran: WGs are supposed to be in consensus and the Team Contact should be paying attention
07:57:18 [tantek]
q?
07:57:27 [nigel]
q+
07:57:39 [tantek]
q+ to ask if this CR streamlining has proposed Process text yet
07:57:42 [plh]
Fantasai: different process fixes can be taken up by the Process at different times
07:57:45 [plh]
ack nigel
07:59:00 [fantasai]
fantasai: although I recommend we adopt these all together to have a good Process
07:59:13 [fantasai]
nigel: says if there's dissent from commenter, then blocked from CR?
07:59:18 [JoeAndrieu]
q?
07:59:26 [fantasai]
fantasai: Not blocked, just can't use fast track -- have to get human approval
07:59:56 [fantasai]
scribenick: fantasai
07:59:59 [pal]
pal has joined #w3process
08:00:04 [fantasai]
tantek: is there Process draft ext on this?
08:00:06 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #w3process
08:00:06 [plh]
plh has joined #w3process
08:00:07 [nigel_]
nigel_ has joined #w3process
08:00:13 [fantasai]
https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/
08:00:17 [fantasai]
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Feverblue
08:00:23 [jorydotc_]
jorydotc_ has joined #w3process
08:00:26 [fantasai]
florian: yes, draft text for most parts
08:00:30 [fantasai]
florian: exception is patent policy
08:00:40 [fantasai]
florian:and the decoupling on next slide, not drafted yet
08:00:44 [plh]
scribe: plh
08:00:48 [tantek]
Thank you!
08:00:50 [plh]
scribeNick: plh
08:01:10 [plh]
Fantasai: [Decoupling CR updates from CR review drafts]
08:01:16 [mnot]
mnot has joined #w3process
08:01:32 [Bert]
s/Floran:/Florian:/
08:01:34 [plh]
... currently every CR updates trigger patent exclusions when you have to go through approvals, etc.
08:01:47 [plh]
... lawyers don't like this to happen often
08:01:56 [nigel_]
q?
08:02:06 [plh]
https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/TPAC/continuous-standards/
08:02:14 [tantek]
q-
08:02:43 [nigel_]
q+ to ask if the CR Updates are always "routine"?
08:02:45 [plh]
Fantasai: folks are looking at unofficial/editor draft instead of looking at the official spec
08:03:01 [nigel_]
rrsagent, pointer?
08:03:01 [RRSAgent]
See https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-w3process-irc#T08-03-01
08:03:12 [plh]
... proposal is to have two types of CR publications: review drafts and updates
08:03:25 [plh]
... updates wouldn't trigger patent exclusions/approvals
08:03:42 [plh]
... and would publish a review draft on a regular basis for exclusions and approvals
08:03:58 [tpk]
tpk has joined #w3process
08:04:11 [plh]
... you can update as much as you want until you feel you need a review draft
08:04:17 [pal]
q+
08:04:30 [plh]
NIgel: are the CR updates considered routine ones?
08:04:54 [plh]
Fantasai: no, but you won't need the same level of approvals
08:05:31 [plh]
Florian: for the updates, you won't have to prove everything, but you may get blocked for a review draft
08:05:46 [plh]
... no checks, fast track or not happen on an update
08:06:18 [plh]
David: if you publish 2 review drafts 2 months apart, they both trigger a call for exclusion?
08:06:27 [nigel_]
s/NIgel/Nigel
08:06:45 [plh]
plh: you need a minimum duration between 2 review drafts
08:06:47 [jorydotc_]
q?
08:06:52 [nigel_]
ack
08:06:54 [nigel_]
ack n
08:06:54 [Zakim]
nigel_, you wanted to ask if the CR Updates are always "routine"?
08:07:09 [plh]
Pierre: so, you'll have a CR updates, and CR review drafts?
08:07:23 [plh]
Fantasai: yes, changing state would be misleading
08:07:43 [plh]
Florian: going back would signal a lower quality, so wrong signal
08:07:45 [dsinger]
ack pal
08:08:10 [plh]
David: why is this not like WHATWG with doing a review draft every 6 months?
08:08:26 [plh]
Fantasai: because it's not automatic. you still need Director's approval
08:09:22 [plh]
Pierre: today, you could do WD, WD, CR, then realize you forgot a feature, go back to WD, ...
08:09:36 [plh]
David: why not doing a call for exclusion everything 6 months?
08:10:06 [plh]
Florian: there is no point in the whatwg when someone checks the work done properly
08:10:36 [fantasai]
plh: previous slide was about reducing overhread of asking Director's permission when everything is fine
08:10:59 [fantasai]
plh: this is about facilitating publication of ED on /TR page
08:11:08 [fantasai]
plh: so that people can show their latest work on the ?TR page
08:11:19 [fantasai]
plh: without requiring Director approval every time they want to update the draft
08:11:36 [fantasai]
plh: if you want a call for exclusion, you have to do what we do today which is to get a transtition approval from the Director
08:11:46 [fantasai]
plh: we're not going to force WG to do that every time they want to update CR
08:13:13 [dsinger]
q?
08:13:16 [fantasai]
dsinger: then you could just publish forever, never get a patent review draft
08:13:26 [fantasai]
plh: max 24 months you can do that, you need to get patent review
08:13:30 [astearns]
May be better to say these things are seperable
08:14:02 [fantasai]
pal: CR means two things to an external organizatioN: quality, and patent exlcusion
08:14:06 [dsinger]
q?
08:14:12 [fantasai]
pal: CR Update means WD with quality level of CR
08:15:02 [fantasai]
nigel: There's later on an inline errata system for REC, why not do that instead of just make change?
08:15:23 [tantek]
"Edited CR" - parallel to "Edited Recommendation"
08:15:29 [plh]
Nigel: why not doing the udpates as annotations?
08:15:47 [tantek]
s/udpates/updates
08:15:56 [tpk]
tpk has left #w3process
08:16:32 [plh]
Fantasai: when doing a lot of linked small changes, annotations would be confusing. it's easier to do that in Recommendations. For CR, it's hard, based on my experience as CSS editor.
08:16:53 [plh]
... having annotations would make it impossible to read
08:17:34 [plh]
... there is an encouragement to document your changes from review draft to review draft
08:18:23 [plh]
Fantasai: [modifying a Recommendation]
08:19:43 [tantek]
This looks good, except keep the existing "Edited Recommendation" phrase in the process
08:20:19 [dsinger]
The documents that result from CR updates *are* of different status from CRs; they have had horizontal review waivers, no director review, and no exclusion opportunity.
08:20:48 [plh]
Florian: because we're calling reviews on a subset of the changes, other could be kept as annotations
08:21:08 [plh]
Fantasai: [allowing adding features to an extensible REC]
08:21:42 [nigel]
q+ to ask why a charter-level pre-agreement is needed to be extensible
08:22:05 [plh]
ack nigel
08:22:05 [Zakim]
nigel, you wanted to ask why a charter-level pre-agreement is needed to be extensible
08:22:19 [plh]
Nigel: can we simply let the wg decide?
08:22:26 [vivien]
I was wondering if this update of REC proposed fix is going to replace Edited Recommendation and Amended Recommendation https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#maturity-levels
08:22:30 [plh]
Fantasai: we want to get AC review
08:22:34 [plh]
Nigel: why?
08:23:05 [plh]
Fantasai: because it depends on the community.
08:23:20 [plh]
Nigel: how can the AC know the community better than the WG?
08:23:31 [plh]
Fantasai: because it's a broader set of people
08:24:18 [plh]
Travis: the distinction between REC and extensible REC, you'd do a new revision but it takes time
08:24:38 [nigel]
I think we should check that out a bit more, who is best to decide if a REC should accept extensions
08:24:54 [tantek]
q?
08:25:00 [tantek]
Zakim, close the queue
08:25:00 [Zakim]
ok, tantek, the speaker queue is closed
08:25:18 [fantasai]
Travis: From working on HTML, we just revved version number when adding new features
08:25:37 [fantasai]
Travis: Main problem was it took so long to get REC, maybe just shortcut process for getting to new REC from old REC
08:26:16 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
08:26:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-w3process-minutes.html plh
08:26:19 [plh]
rrsagent, make logs public-visible
08:26:26 [fantasai]
Travis: instead of changing meaning of REC
08:26:31 [fantasai]
fantasai: I like that proposal
08:26:35 [fantasai]
AC poll - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/improved-pp-2019/
08:26:39 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
08:26:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-w3process-minutes.html plh
08:27:28 [yoshiaki]
yoshiaki has joined #w3process
08:28:11 [yoshiaki]
yoshiaki has joined #w3process
08:31:17 [jeff__]
jeff__ has joined #w3process
08:32:02 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #w3process
08:33:39 [yoshiaki_]
yoshiaki_ has joined #w3process
08:34:20 [pal]
pal has joined #w3process
08:35:01 [nigel_]
nigel_ has joined #w3process
08:35:46 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
08:37:43 [jorydotcom]
jorydotcom has joined #w3process
08:38:03 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #w3process
08:38:20 [yofukami]
yofukami has joined #w3process
09:31:45 [nigel]
nigel has joined #w3process
09:34:48 [yoshiaki]
yoshiaki has joined #w3process
09:38:54 [yoshiaki_]
yoshiaki_ has joined #w3process
11:30:34 [pal]
pal has joined #w3process
13:19:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #w3process
14:57:09 [Bert]
Bert has left #w3process