<dsinger> trackbot, start meeting
<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai
dsinger: Agenda-bashing?
... Didn't notice anything to change agenda, except maybe some
messages just recently
... mostly mchampion's concerns?
... any changes to agenda?
[silence]
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AAgenda%2B
dsinger: ok, let's go through PRs and issues that we need to address
florian: Would like to formally recognize that every issue not currently tagged as Agenda+ (and not about registries) is being deferred to later Process cycle
dsinger: wfm, but let's check PRs real quick before resolving
florian: Added some text about
process for resolving CEPC and Patent Policy etc.
... but issue raised that calling them "governing documents"
was misleading, since doesn't include Member Agreement,
etc.
... so PR here is to remove the term "governing document"
<dsinger> see https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/367/files
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/367/
dsinger: questions/concerns?
fantasai: looked OK to me
dsinger: I agree
RESOLUTION: Accept PR to remove term "governing document" from revising CEPC/etc. section
<dsinger> see also https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/355
jeff: Any comment from Wendy?
florian: Can't know for sure, but ...
dsinger: Can't be sure she's
happy, but fairly sure she'd be happier, even if not completely
happy
... Jeff, maybe you can check with her if she would want
further edits
jeff: Sounds reasonable, can deal with follow-up at AB meeting
dsinger: remove Agenda+ label, stale issue
florian: One way to deal with this is to delete reference, another to update the document, third way to worry about it later
github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/274
dsinger: On the call here, anyone have a strong opinion?
fantasai: no opinion
dsinger: resistance from chaals
and nigel, so let's leave it there
... Maybe that puts pressure to actually fix it
... ok, remove Agenda+ label, won't fix yet
<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/358
<dsinger> issues tagged agenda+ https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Agenda%2B
florian: My feeling is we made
some simplifications already
... Either this is already addressed, or whatever bits not
addressed, should address in next round of editorial fixes
jeff: I definitely feel this
should be deferred
... my original comment was to make clear that you can have
CR=FPWD
florian: that's a different issue
dsinger: you found this section confusing in Dec
florian: there's been changes, in
the direction you wanted
... hopefully fixed, if not defer remainder of fix?
jeff: I proposed to defer to 2021 already, and Florian agreed
dsinger: OK, then we're removing
Agenda+ and deferring
... any other opinion?
jeff: We'll go through AC review,
I can reraise it in 2021 depending how things go
... I think we can close this for now
fantasai: so close or defer?
jeff: Have to discuss what we're planning to do in 2021, so maybe can leave it open
<florian> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/352
<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/355
s/Steps to advancing ot Rec/FPWD and CR at the same time
jeff: Seem to have some disagreement, so let's defer and leave it open
florian: I'm not convince we need to change anything in the Process here, but there seems to be an understanding that this exists so we either need to fix the Process or the understanding
fantasai: Same is true of the Patent Policy, btw; there's no concept of an FPWD that's also a CR.
florian: The patent policy FAQ seems to think it exists, but nothing implies that in patent policy
jeff: [summarizes some
comments]
... If everyone agrees that you can have FPWD = CR ...
florian: I don't think you can,
you can have CR 10 min after FWPD if you satisfy all the
requirements
... but not have a publication that's both simultaneously
dsinger: I would like to close it. It's such a corner case, just do the transitions in quick succession.
fantasai: I support that, would like Patent Policy FAQ to not imply that this thing exists when it doesn't
jeff: then dependency on PSIG to close?
fantasai: Happy to close here, take action item to tell PSIG that this thing they assert exists doesn't exist in the Process so they need to remove the FAQ
RESOLUTION: close no change; convey conclusion to PSIG so they can update their documents
florian: no other issues / PRs to discuss
<dsinger> checking Pull Requests https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls
dsinger: Don't see anything
... will let editor fix spelling error
... please close that pull request one way or another
dsinger: Anything to discuss on this question?
jeff: I would recommend that we don't take the vote here, that we send a CFC to Process CG and give them 1.5 weeks to respond
florian: Didn't last time we said this time we would take the resolution and the last two weeks were for people to complain?
jeff: I feel that this important document, not having more than the 5 AB members, no opportunity from others who can't show up
dsinger: Anyone in this call today that disagrees with this consensus (to send document)?
fantasai: There were at least 2
people who sent in comments ahead of time on this issue
... so already an expectation that we would take this decision
today
dsinger: Will issue a CFC on the
final document, including the last couple PRs we merged
... I'll issue a CFC that closes before the AB meeting
fantasai: And if someone sends objection or comment? no other opportunity to address
jeff: AB can decide what to do
dsinger: it's their formal decision anyway
florian: I feel that we sufficiently socialied idea that we'd take the resolution today, so don't feel CFC is necessary, but don't object
<dsinger> we decide to (a) finish the Pull Requests (b) issue a formal CfC on the Process CG list, that (c) closes before the AB meeting and (d) leave resolution of any objections to the AB
jeff: anyone likely to object is probably an AC rep, can comment during AC review period anyway
<jeff> [but we should find out their objections earlier if possible]
<dsinger> but we note we have consensus on this call, where we advertized we would seek consensus
dsinger: formally we said we'd decide on the call, and we have consensus on this call
jeff: I propose that we meet
weekly rather than biweekly during March
... and maybe ??
... and use that time to field AC comments as they come
in
... and if early in March we don't have AC comments
... I think Mike has pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of
review
... maybe do a walk-through section-by-section
... to help people understand
... Not sure even whole AB has done that
... could be constructive
... if we get lots of comments, we'll want to process them
asap
<jeff> +1 to David's proposa
<jeff> l
fantasai: I would prefer to only schedule weekly calls if we need them, not otherwise
dsinger: Can say, be prepared for
weekly calls, but decide on the week whether we need one
... and let's not start until March 11th
[dsinger and florian are afk, and unlikely to have that many comments by the 4th]
<dsinger> OK, the chair will send a message to the CG to be prepared for weekly calls if pressing matters come up. We’ll decide on a weekly basis; be prepared for the 18th, we’ll decide on the 11th
dsinger: We would normally have
this discussion in the Fall, means we'll have a very short
cycle for 2021
... We will only have a few months for Process 2021
jeff: Originally we though that
Process 2021 would be just an edit cycle
... but I would really like to get a consensus about
registries
... in my mind, for whatever reason, that's been resistant to
consensus
... I'm not so sure we should worry so much about the
schedule
dsinger: there's been some good debate on specific questions, so I'm hopeful
<scribe> ACTION: dsinger to send out CFC on Process document
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Send out cfc on process document [on David Singer - due 2020-02-19].
<scribe> ACTION: dsinger to send warning about potential weekly calls in March
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Send warning about potential weekly calls in march [on David Singer - due 2020-02-19].
dsinger: Let's prep for 2021?
florian: I will need to compile the DoC, will have that effect
dsinger: OK, let's discuss in Hoboken
fantasai: wanted to mention that Florian and I can offer to have calls with anyone who has questions or wants a walk through; between the two of us we cover all the timezones
jeff: soon after AB meeting, we
want to get out the actual call for review to the AC
... that requires a cover letter
... which requires a description of what's changed, what's the
schedule, etc.
... we don't actually have to wait for AB meeting to start
drafting cover letter
... between dsinger, fantasai, florian, know the scope of the
changes
... in that letter, we can say, whoever wants to schedule
meetings with fantasai or florian, can also reserve some
times
dsinger: suggest getting this
written up before the AB meeting, so AB can just approve
it
... Any other comments?
... Congrats, we finished 10min early! And thank you for an
intense six months of work amongs very fine people
... Hopefully rest of CG agrees we are done with Process 2020
:)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/fies/fixes/ Succeeded: s/FPWD and CR at the same time/Steps to advancing to Rec/ FAILED: s/Steps to advancing ot Rec/FPWD and CR at the same time/ Present: jeff florian cwilso dsinger Found ScribeNick: fantasai Inferring Scribes: fantasai WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 12 Feb 2020 People with action items: dsinger WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]