<jeanne> agenda order is 5,2,3,4

<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj

<CharlesHall> apologies, multitasking for first :30min

Update on 3.0 publication

ca: Continuing to work through objections that were raised on publishing CfC
... Chair responses are out to objectors; available to view
... Regret being slow in the process, but there were multiple factors complicating progress
... Response to objectors is by Sunday

mc: i.e. objectors to respond with their reactions to the proposed resolutions of their objections

Silver Decision Policy

js: Another loose end of procedural business from the year ...
... There was an objection on the draft from AGWG; to be addressed on today's call

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020OctDec/0063.html

js: Objection was "three minor concerns"

<jeanne> >> - If a decision is made on the call, there does not seem to be a way for

<jeanne> >> anyone who was not on the call to raise an objection. I would suggest that

<jeanne> >> any decisions made on a call be announced via e-mail, so that anyone who

<jeanne> >> couldn't attend still has the opportunity to raise their objections.

js: We suggested 7 busniness days to object as a proposal

<Lauriat> Current draft: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/decision-policy

sl: Does current draft include proposed changes?

mc: Unsure ...
... After looking, seems not

js: So are the proposed changes noted somewhere?

jjs: Does anyone recall discussing changes to the DP?

<Chuck> Janina: I don't recall.

js: So URI is best draft, and edits proposed not yhet incorporated. Let's discuss now
... I agree on the objection and can agree to 7 business days

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to point out text that looks like it addresses this concern

<Lauriat> "For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the minutes and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections."

wf: suggest word other than 'missed'
... more important: how is to be made clear there's a decision?

sl: Believe we had committed to a decisions page

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask *how* those decisions are communicated forward - minutes only is a good way of hiding decisions

jf: We need to make decisions obvious

<Lauriat> +1 to making decisions more obvious than in the minutes (I can't keep up with that either and agree most others also don't)

js: Believe we're looking for a lighter weight process for TFs
... All decisions are up to the WG

<Lauriat> +1 to lighter weight than CFC

<Chuck> janina: I think the minutes can help us if we can regularly resolve... put in the resolutions when we make decisions. If there is a decision page that would be helpful.

<Chuck> janina: The week makes sense, but there are times of year when it doesn't, such as around end of year holidays. Because this came up in several APA calls...

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Holidays

<Chuck> janina: I put a page together that's part of W3C consensus process, we have a calendar that shows the pain points.

js: Suggests we use W3C publishing moratoria

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say specify resolution and to say recording decision page and to say if you care, gotta read minutes and to address request for time

js: Facilitators need discretion to account for participants vacations, hollidays, etc.

mc: Agree to recording decisions as RESOLUTION
... Believe reading minutes is a reasonable expectation of people's participation
... Believe we had AG language for timing flexibility over a minimum

wf: Could resolutions be noted in minutes sent out by email?

<Lauriat> +1 to that, we should include that in the summaries

<CharlesHall> +1 to Wilco. summary helps more than minutes.

<KimD> +1 to Wilco - add resolutions into the summary and title

sl: +1 to WF; believed we were trying to address that ...
... Needs to be easier to see the resolutions in minutes

<JF> +1 to shawn

jf: If this TF wants lighter decision policy, that's fine. But TF decisions are reviewable by WG

mc: That's why we have separate TF and WG decision policies
... AG has had trouble understanding TF decisions in order to ratify

jf: unconvinced

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to -1 to mc

mc: DpP requires traceability

jf: So our discussion here is to ensure that?

mc: Should help with findability

<Chuck> janina: One thing that is unique here, and I've not experienced elsewhere, is an executive summary. I usually put the entire minutes in the email.

<Lauriat> +1, sounds good to me.

<Chuck> janina: If we log resolutions, they are available as a block, and maybe we can agree on executive summary, we can block copy the resolutions that are gathered by the bots, and record in summary email.

<JF> +1 to Janina suggestion

js: Notes we've been recently more careful to log our decisions as resolutions in minutes
... We'll be doing more when we get FPWD feedback, so we need to figure out a good policy/procedure

<JF> Jeanne has just made the point as to why "minutes alone" is insufficient

js: Notes, we're always bringhing on new scribes with minimal experience. We should not disincentivise scribing

jf: Sometimes minutes are less thorough than other times
... scribing is tough

js: Not what I meant: We can correct minutes as they go.

s: But noone observes the process of sending the minutes email

<Chuck> janina: I think we'll be saved by new template.

mc: Well, we could do oversight, requiring Facilitators to send minutes, not the scribe
... Perhaps a minutes generation script is also possible

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about summary of where we are

ca: Believe I'm hearing we will record decisions via RESOLUTIONs; and add those to a decisions page in addition to having them as a block in the minutes
... Whatever we agree should provide some level of assurance that can be relied on. Believe that's a resonable expectation

js: Hearing two issues: what in the DP; and what are the operating procedures in the TF
... I'm OK with RESOLUTIONS as part of our procedures, but don't want to put it into the DP
... Scribing is important, and we don't want to make it harder

mc: We could document procedures as a "nonnormative" type statement

js: Must also account for human error ...

mc: Documenting procedures can help with that

js: Agrees, live by checklists

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if it's ok to articulate as best practice?

<Lauriat> +1

ca: Q: are we OK to rely on the RESOILUTIONS mechanism, and to document that in some manner?

+1

<JF> +1 to Wilco

wf: Should be in the email --

ca: Are you suggesting we say that in our DP?

<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco's suggestion and agreement with Chuck's proposal

<Chuck> chuck: Is the suggestion that we put use of email to communicate decisions in the decision policy, but the means of how we do that is a best practice?

<Chuck> +1 to Wilco's suggestion

<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco's suggestion and agreement with Chuck's clarifying and crediting and such

js: Looking for a proposal of lang for the DP, and where it should go ...
... Reads #2

<jeanne> Existing: For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the minutes and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this

<jeanne> into account when considering objections.

sl: Suggesting "read resolutions" rather than "read minutes"

<jeanne> For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of the group to include list of resolutions in the email of the minutes of the

<jeanne> meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections.

jf: If you have X time to object, how's that different from a CfC?
... Just issue a CfC

js: The CfC asks people who have voted in the meeting to vote again in email/WBS
... And, the final disposition will be with AGWG

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask when we give people a period of time to object to decisions made... how is that different than a CfC?

ca: The presentation may make the difference

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that the presentation may itself ...

<Chuck> janina: Presentation is important and for the fact that the CFC is asked to count noses (you have to vote again in email). If we post the resolutions in email, we rely on the fact that people know that and expectation is that people are aware of our processes.

<Chuck> janina: Seems less formal.

<jeanne> For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of the group to include list of resolutions in the email of the minutes of the

<jeanne> meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections.

ca: Believe we should capture facilitator's flexibility for hollidays, etc -- working on it

js: me too

<KimD> +1

<jeanne> The task force facilitaoros should take into account for holidays and W3C Publishing Moritorium periods.

<jeanne> For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of the group to include list of resolutions in the email of the minutes of the

<jeanne> meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections. Facilitators can extend this at their discretion.

sl: We need to account for various flexibility -- travel to meetings, etc

js: Any objections?

+1

<Lauriat> +1

<JF> +0

<Jan> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1

<Chuck> +1

<KimD> +1 and Instead of "this" - define it. Maybe Facilitators can extend the timeline at their discretion.

<Wilco> 0

<Lauriat> +1 to Kim's editorial change

<Chuck> +1 to editorial change

Decision policy objection #2

RESOLUTION: Amend the decision policy #2, first bullet point to say: For decisions being considered in meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for

<jeanne> Proposed: It would be good to clarify that "meetings" here means just official task force meetings, and that decisions can not be made by subgroups.

<Chuck> jeanne: It would be good to clarify that meetings just mean TF meetings, and decisions cannot be made by sub-groups.

objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of

the group to include a list of resolutions in the email of the minutes of the meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering

objections. Facilitators can extend this timeline at their discretion.

<Chuck> jeanne: <pastes in objection>

<Chuck> +1 to change

<Lauriat> +1

<Sheri_B-H> +1 to change

<JF> no objections

RESOLUTION: Amend the decision policy #2, first bullet point to say: For decisions being considered in Task Force meetings, objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for

objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of the group to include a list of resolutions in

the email of the minutes of the meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections. Facilitators can extend this timeline at

their discretion.

Objection #3

<Chuck> janina: I must depart, sorry.

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

<jeanne> Objection: There is no description of what form a "call for objections" can take.

<jeanne> >> For example, AG has a policy where we use a CFC e-mail, which can only be

<jeanne> >> about a single decision that has to be clear from the title. Some

<jeanne> >> description like that would go a long way to clarifying this.

jeanne: There's no description of what form a call for objections can take. <pasting in>
... for example, AG has CFC email, that can only be about a single decision, and is in the title. A good description would go a long way to clarify this.
... Our decisions will usually be about small things. Call for objections is usually in meeting and given verbally by facilitators. Any objections can come in IRC or in queue or speaking up.
... Do you have a suggestion for what would be correct Wilco?

wilco: Just trying to parse this again. Call for objections only applicable during call?

jeanne: In that context it is within the call. but we say people can object to it later if they aren't in the meeting.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask we wouldn't reject an objection that wasn't voiced by a person in meeting but later objects?

michael: Good point, I would want to make sure people don't fail to object and hold up the process when they had an opportunity not to.
... But we should allow for second thoughts.

jeanne: anyone who has second thoughts should contact facilitators or put it in email. If we have to adjust that...

michael: change "must object in meeting" to "should object in meeting". Doesn't handle people who toon out... I personally rule out my own objections if I tuned out in the call.

<jeanne> For decisions being considered in task force meetings, objections should be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when there is a call for objections. Participants who miss meetings are expected to read the resolutions and raise objections to any decisions made within a week of the meeting. It is a best practice of the group to include a list of resolutions in the email of the

<jeanne> minutes of the meeting. If participants will be out for more than a week, let the facilitators know so they can take this into account when considering objections. Facilitators can extend the timeline at their discretion.

jeanne: We will continue this on Friday.

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: jeanne sajkaj Chuck Francis_Storr JakeAbma CharlesHall Sheri_B-H JF Wilco KimD
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Scribes: sajkaj, Chuck
ScribeNicks: sajkaj, Chuck

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

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.)