Meeting minutes
<plh> David: I went through the repo for priorities to send back to the AB
<plh> ... then where we are on major topics
<dsinger_> https://
Decisions on what needs AB input
<plh> David: #486 and #487 are TAG nomination and election
<plh> ... we need decisions on the AB but doesn't seem urgent
<plh> jrosewell: agree to move forward
<plh> ... overlap with holidays would be be nice to fix
<plh> jeff: +1 to not staggering
<plh> .... #487, is it a process thing or a team thing?
if it's not urgent for 2021, let's skip. We don't have time to discuss today.
<plh> ... I could take it to the team if it's not a process thing
<plh> david: maybe that's what we're asking
<plh> jrosewell: look at the holidays around the world and avoid them
<plh> david: best action is for the team to look at it
<plh> David: #482 on the adoption of a formal anti-trust policy
<plh> florian: AB is more appropriate, so yes
<plh> wseltzer: note we do have a policy
<plh> david: feel free to retitle the issue
<plh> jeff: let's not. the word upgrading doesn't mean we don't have one
<plh> david: ok
<plh> david: #436 (cover #322) on the minimal tooling requirements we propose
<plh> ... this one is urgent
<plh> jrosewell: there is a guideline on #482. it's urgent
<plh> david: ok, should go to the AB and Wendy
<plh> jeff: i sent a request to know how much time and topics we need for the AB
<plh> ... let's come back to that later
<plh> david: #334 Recording of meetings
<plh> ... should go on the AB agenda
<plh> david: #316 and #280 are both concerned with Director-free, #223 is about the AB chair selection
<plh> ... those are at the leisure of the AB
<plh> david: #168 isn't ready for AB discussion yet
<plh> david: #130, why should this go to the AB?
<plh> florian: we're not blocking on the AB
<plh> david: I'll take the label off for now
<plh> Jeff: so we have up to 6 items
<plh> [going through timing for the AB agenda]
Registries
<plh> https://
florian: Should share link, but not read in-session
dsinger_: Survey closes today
<wseltzer> [6 responses]
plh: Only 6 responses so far
dsinger_: Do we need to extend it? Do we have time to extend it?
jeff: If they had a strong opinion, they'd respond and otherwise would be delegating to this group
fantasai: Suggest extend til Friday and poke chairs
dsinger_: Agree with fantasai
dsinger_: Who has access to this survey?
plh: Chairs and Team Contacts
dsinger_: Let's extend til Friday and ask the Team
dsinger_: Certainly the Team Contact should be able to respond on behalf of groups that have proto-registries
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask how many responses
<jrosewell> 6 out of 188
dsinger_: OK, so proposal is extend til Friday and poke Team Contacts/chairs
tzviya: How many responses expected?
dsinger_: Hoping for at least a dozen
tzviya: Maybe poke ppl directly
Memoranda
florian: The PR for Memoranda was built on top of another one, can't quite discuss separately
florian: PR that separates note track from Rec track
florian: Last time I was asked to summarize why we should split the tracks
florian: forgot my action item, did last night, so will read the comment
florian: there are pictures!
<florian> https://
dsinger_: Personally I agree
dsinger_: Conceptually separate is much easier to understand
jeff: I have to admit that was much faster than I could follow
jeff: I respect Florian's desire to simplify
jeff: but while it simplifies the actual Process, means quantity of changes we need to evaluate is quite a lot
jeff: Because changes links in the Process
jeff: Didn't understand why necessary to address 461
jeff: All it asks is for TAG to take a document to approved status
jeff: 342 seems nice, but don't see why we need all that change
plh: I like it, but my problem is there no way to go from WD to Note
<wseltzer> +1 to plh
plh: You're forcing to say Discontinued
plh: some groups reluctant, because not discontinued, but want to continue working on it
dsinger_: Would you suggest that as a unidirectional arrow?
plh: Should be reversable
plh: might make second diagram as complex as first one
dsinger_: Not as much as the first diagram
florian: Retiring a REC-track document because giving up on it, that's a handled case
florian: but if taking document on REC track and switching it to a Note with intention of moving back to REC track, very messy from PP point of view
florian: transition from REC track to NOTE is described as abandoning document
florian: If you retire something
plh: Groups can change their mind over years
<wseltzer> [groups can drop something from Rec track without abandoning]
florian: If you want to retire a document, that's allowed.
florian: if goal is to switch tracks, make progress, and then switch again
florian: Replying to Jeff, TAG elevating notes ... TAG can't even publish NOTEs in current Process
florian: We could make a TAG-specific process doesn't seem ideal
florian: and that wouldn't let anyone else elevate their notes
florian: We should let the TAG publish NOTES, and let everyone elevate their NOTES
florian: I could manage to make edits that add elevated NOTEs without this separation, but it raises a lot of questions
florian: e.g. we'd have a way to elevate an abandoned REC
florian: why should that be possible?
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on PP
fantasai: the PP is clear: it doesn't consider Notes to exist. so, it will only see WDs
… it's not good
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to Florian and to comment on his debate with PLH
fantasai: contributions to the Notes aren't covered by the PP
jeff: I object to conflate the 2 issues. the original issue was only to get TAG documents endorsed
… they don't have to be Notes. the TAG is a unique group and we want a wait to endorse their documents
… the solution 342 is unecessary to solve that
… on paths of Notes<->WDs
… this is an illustration of why it would take longer to take this through
… so I'd like a narrow solution for the TAG for the immediate future
wseltzer: +1 to separate the issues. the path to Notes from REC-track is a useful one
… so let's not throw it out
florian: why is that a feature?
wseltzer: I just said the path from REC-track to Notes
<fantasai> I don't see a problem with WD->NOTE, but having Draft NOTE still seems necessary
florian: I thought the AB recommended overall of the states. are we now saying that the TAG shouldn't publish Notes?
florian: if I extend the current process wording, the TAG would be allowed to publish working drafts
<Zakim> dsinger_, you wanted to suggest we maybe need a name other than 'discontinued'?
david: the PP FAQ tells us about TAG participants being treated as IEs
florian: that's the FAQ, not the PP
fantasai: anything the TAG participants produce are owned by their employers in general
<wseltzer> [not uniformly]
david: we could change the label 'discontinued' if that makes WGs unconfortable
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if the goal is the process or that tag publishing
tzviya: it seems we're getting caught in the process. people outside of W3C don't necessarily care about the details of the Process.
… we should focus on making sure the TAG can accomplish what they need
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to florian about things that are wrong today
jeff: I don't disagree with #342 being worked on, but we should socialize it given the changes
… it's not just a wording issue
… it will need a broader conversation but I'd like to land a solution for the TAG this year
… the TAG can take a finding to memoranda if we'd like to
florian: if we do it in the reverse order, we'll have duplicate parts of the process
jeff: i don't hear any immediate problem that would solve.
<jrosewell> Observation: we've spent 20 minutes discussing this and don't seem to have a solution that we can agree (or even understanding the exact problem). A general simplification should be completed before these sort of issues are worked on.
jeff: we just want to get TAG documents endorsed
david: Florian, feel free to socialize your idea
<fantasai> dsinger++
david: if we get support, we can think more about it. if we get comments, we can keep looking at minimal changes
… I'll look at providing a path for the minimal solution for the TAG
<jeff> dsinger++
<jeff> +1 to David's 2 proposals
Action: Florian to socialize his ideas in #342
Action: David to come back with a minimal solution to endorse TAG documents
fantasai: the fact that Notes can represent discontinued documents is something people find confusing. Also, we have an old issue about what discontinued documents represent, clarifying it; the proposed changes would do that.
<wseltzer> +1 to the rephrasing
david: #493 and #494 Pull, clarifying Team Amendments. We seem converged, are we?
florian: seems so indeed. I made the edits
wendy: +1
david: approved then
[david going quickly through AC-Review and P2021 issues]
Other Pull Requests
david: I'll roll that over for the next agenda
fantasai: I don't think it makes sense to look at other things than allowing the TAG to publish Notes, and allow Notes to be elevated to Memoranda
… possible restrict the later to TAG-only
… it seems the easiest way to move forward
<jrosewell> https://
<fantasai> We've been asked to make the TAG allowed to publish NOTEs, and they use NOTEs not Findings for general documents such as the ones we are wanting them to elevate
<fantasai> If we want to restrict elevation to the TAG, fine
jrosewell: if we need to simplify or get more capacity to edit the Process, maybe the staff can come with external facilitation
david: might be good to get a professional writer
florian: I suspect adding people will just add opinions, we still need consensus
jeff: on TAG and Notes: my advise is that if we don't land #342, we don't delay using Notes
david: true, we can continue with current practices