14:53:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:53:28 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/24-w3process-irc
14:53:29 <Zakim> inviting RRSAgent
14:53:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:53:32 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:53:46 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
15:00:18 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
15:00:24 <plh> present+
15:03:27 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
15:03:55 <fantasai> dsinger: Forgot to include recording meetings in section ??
15:04:06 <dsinger> s/??/3/
15:04:24 <fantasai> Topic: Tooling Policy
15:04:27 <cwilso> present+
15:04:42 <fantasai> dsinger: CFCs out to the AB, making various comments on policy. Trying to get agreement in principle
15:04:51 <fantasai> dsinger: Question about MUST vs SHOULD
15:04:52 <plh> q+
15:05:16 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:05:22 <tantek> present+
15:05:24 <dsinger> ack plh
15:05:27 <jeff> present+
15:05:44 <fantasai> plh: One reason for SHOULD is we don't know how it will be received from WG and how much work to make it happen
15:05:51 <fantasai> plh: For some WGs, not very simple to move over
15:06:02 <fantasai> plh: Need to collect data from Team Contact, and I'm working on a questionnaire on that
15:06:20 <fantasai> plh: This has side-effect of making Team look more closely at the guidelines
15:06:29 <dsinger> ack fant
15:06:34 <fantasai> dsinger: Would be good to hear about the hard cases
15:06:58 <florian> fantasai: I agree with Jeff about mking the guidelines shoulds for now
15:07:19 <florian> fantasai: so that we can take time to get ready before making them into musts
15:07:29 <jeff> q+
15:07:33 <florian> fantasai: we'll then know what needs tweaking, etc
15:07:34 <dsinger> q+
15:07:50 <wseltzer> +1 to "should"
15:08:06 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:08:06 <fantasai> s/etc/what can be made MUST/
15:08:07 <florian> fantasai: I think this approach avoids a lot of the problems of doing it in 2020, given that it's a lot of work for some people/grtoups
15:08:15 <fantasai> cwilso: fantasai and plh said what I wanted to say
15:08:31 <fantasai> jeff: We've had very good experience in W3C socially by instituting changes gradually
15:08:34 <weiler> s/2020/2021/
15:08:52 <fantasai> jeff: e.g. liberal document license, first we allowed it only if there was no dissent in the group
15:09:04 <fantasai> jeff: and then ppl got more comfortable with it, and started using for everything
15:09:17 <florian_irc> florian_irc has joined #w3process
15:09:23 <dsinger> q?
15:09:25 <fantasai> jeff: I imagine a similar circumstance here. Socially-mild way to start doing it, everyone will see it's the right thing to do
15:09:27 <dsinger> ack dsinger
15:09:37 <wseltzer> q+
15:09:46 <fantasai> dsinger: I think transition is a poor reason to put SHOULD into the Process
15:09:55 <fantasai> dsinger: if there are good reasons why they shouldn't comply, then we can write a SHOULD
15:10:09 <plh> q+
15:10:11 <fantasai> dsinger: but we should write what we intend, and just allow a grace period
15:10:23 <fantasai> dsinger: don't need misleading Process text
15:10:44 <fantasai> dsinger: Are there legit cases that need exceptions?
15:10:48 <fantasai> dsinger: then make should
15:10:56 <weiler> -1. ; don't fight these battles now
15:11:05 <fantasai> +1 to weiler
15:11:32 <weiler> Tantek
15:11:39 <weiler> s/Tantek/
15:11:43 <weiler> s/Tantek//
15:11:46 <dsinger> q?
15:12:15 <fantasai> fantasai: dsinger is arguing for MUST, multiple ppl arguing for SHOULD
15:12:29 <fantasai> fantasai: is anyone else arguing for SHOULD?
15:12:48 <fantasai> dsinger: let's wait for survey
15:12:49 <dsinger> q?
15:13:14 <jeff> Fantasai: AB has lots of discussion
15:13:24 <jeff> ... David you are the only one arguing for MUST
15:13:32 <jeff> ... David, can you live with SHOULD
15:13:46 <jeff> David: Then we should be willing that it might be indefinite
15:13:53 <jeff> ... let's not delude ourselves
15:14:06 <jeff> Fantasai: I think it is fine if it is indefinite
15:14:12 <jeff> ... soft powers are powerful
15:14:23 <jeff> ... if Team is onboard, that's what we need
15:14:30 <jeff> David: Acid test is the practice
15:14:44 <jeff> Fantasai: David, you are the only dissenter to SHOULD
15:14:50 <jeff> ... can you live with that?
15:14:56 <jeff> David: I want to see the results of the survey
15:15:06 <jeff> Fantasai: Some people think SHOULD regardless
15:15:11 <jeff> David: At the moment I disagree
15:15:18 <jeff> ... willing to see discussion and survey
15:15:20 <dsinger> q?
15:15:23 <dsinger> ack ws
15:15:25 <jeff> ... haven't heard from the whole AB
15:15:41 <fantasai> wseltzer: My concern with MUST is the unintended consequences of giving new objection rights
15:16:00 <dsinger> ack plh
15:16:08 <fantasai> wseltzer: I think a SHOULD that is indeed strongly followed by the Team, as in you need a really good reason for an exception, is better
15:16:16 <fantasai> plh: different between MUST vs SHOULD is in how the Team applies it
15:16:31 <fantasai> plh: We had MUST publish every 3 months in the Process for years, and in practice WGs were reluctant to follow
15:16:40 <fantasai> plh: Team didn't enforce because puts WGs in limbo
15:16:47 <fantasai> plh: We should go with a SHOULD to make it apply
15:16:58 <fantasai> plh: if we want to revisit later because believe it's not propertly followed
15:17:01 <fantasai> plh: we can revisit then
15:17:14 <fantasai> dsinger: OK, let's see what comes back from the AB CFCs
15:17:16 <jeff> q+
15:17:20 <dsinger> ack jef
15:17:41 <fantasai> jeff: There were a few other points, and maybe they were minor, but for example on the ?? point where we require best practices
15:17:52 <fantasai> jeff: raised concern that not defined what those best practices were
15:17:59 <fantasai> jeff: Not that there weren't other issues raised
15:18:09 <jeff> s/??/internationalization/
15:18:10 <fantasai> florian: I suspect we used to [audio broken]
15:19:23 <fantasai> florian: We can wait for survey before diving into details
15:19:27 <fantasai> Topic: Separate Note Track
15:19:33 <fantasai> dsinger: Good support from AC, should we land it?
15:19:40 <fantasai> florian: Yes, two nuances
15:19:50 <fantasai> florian: One is bikeshedding on name of the discontinued/abandoned/draft thing
15:20:04 <fantasai> florian: Something like "Inactive Draft" might be more useful than the DDR term
15:20:20 <fantasai> florian: There's also some discussion of switching tracks other than copy-paste into a new document
15:20:28 <fantasai> florian: but basically suggest merging PR and then follow up on those quesitons
15:20:55 <fantasai> dsinger: Inactive Draft might be more useful than implying permanent abandonment
15:21:15 <fantasai> florian: I'd prefer "Discontinued" because existing word in Process
15:21:19 <fantasai> dsinger: that also work
15:21:47 <jeff> q+
15:21:53 <fantasai> dsinger: In absence of better ideas, we'll call them "Discontinued Draft"
15:22:05 <fantasai> dsinger: for discontinued REC-track documents (since they'll no longer be Notes)
15:22:19 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:22:51 <fantasai> fantasai: There's some longstanding confusion over NOTEs used for terminating REC-track work
15:23:24 <fantasai> jeff: Could have a document that starts on REC track and shouldn't be normative?
15:23:41 <fantasai> dsinger: If was intended to be a spec, but later realize don't intend to finish it, then that's a "discontinued" REC-track document
15:23:42 <tantek> q+ to ask if someone has made a list of current use-cases for notes?
15:23:59 <fantasai> dsinger: but if it's something you want ppl to look at, but decide it should be non-normative advice, that would be a Note that's alive
15:24:03 <tantek> not seeing a link here about notes
15:24:09 <tantek> q?
15:24:17 <dsinger> ack tantek
15:24:17 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask if someone has made a list of current use-cases for notes?
15:24:29 <fantasai> tantek: Definitely interested in the outcome
15:24:33 <fantasai> tantek: what does a Note mean?
15:24:44 <fantasai> tantek: has anyone started list of use cases for Notes?
15:24:58 <fantasai> tantek: e.g. use case document, TAG guidance, something else?
15:25:10 <fantasai> dsinger: plh can you give us a list?
15:25:26 <fantasai> plh: To look at every single one to figure out why it's a note, is it because abandoned or retired? that's a bit of work
15:25:45 <tantek> lol no, no one asked for every single one
15:26:06 <fantasai> tantek: nothing comprehensive, just want a start on the list
15:26:13 <fantasai> fantasai: to be clear, we're not trying to subclass NOTEs
15:26:13 <plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/?status=note and https://www.w3.org/TR/?status=ret
15:26:30 <jeff> q+
15:26:32 <fantasai> fantasai: just want to pull out the use of NOTEs for abandoned work on the REC track
15:26:37 <tantek> wow did we even try to list use-cases?
15:26:46 <dsinger> q?
15:26:52 <fantasai> fantasai: in order to disentangle tracks
15:26:54 <tantek> is there a GitHub issue on this?
15:26:56 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:27:15 <fantasai> fantasai: ...
15:27:29 <fantasai> dsinger: If you have a better idea than "Discontinued Draft" for abandoned work, bring it to GH
15:27:36 <tantek> is there a reason we're only clarifying that case?
15:27:42 <fantasai> tantek, https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/342
15:27:51 <fantasai> tantek, yes because it's the only one that ties together the tracks in a confusing way
15:27:55 <tantek> q+ to note political motivations and how that'll result in folks not using discontinued draft
15:28:07 <fantasai> tantek, please read the issue
15:28:18 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #w3process
15:28:21 <florian> q+
15:28:24 <jrosewell> present+
15:28:24 <tantek> reading
15:28:45 <fantasai> jeff: I don't care if we do sync or async, but if there are many use cases that can land in Notes and some deserve to be discontinued and some need to move to other tracks, and some still a Note, before we write Process text we have a good understanding of where we expect this to go
15:28:54 <tantek> thanks for the link fantasai!
15:29:08 <fantasai> dsinger: we're not changing anything about Notes except giving them their own track
15:29:41 <fantasai> jeff: What I heard is that discontinued drafts are now called NOTEs, and in the future won't be, but could be?
15:29:56 <fantasai> dsinger: If WG thinks should be published for current consumption, but not normative spec, should be a NOTE
15:30:04 <fantasai> dsinger: and can switch tracks into NOTE
15:30:31 <fantasai> dsinger: But what we don't want them to do is to publish historical abandoned work as NOTEs, that is a "Discontinued Draft" and it sits on REC-track as such
15:31:08 <fantasai> dsinger: We're not taking any capability away, just clarifying status of such documents
15:31:10 <dsinger> q?
15:31:17 <dsinger> ack tante
15:31:17 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note political motivations and how that'll result in folks not using discontinued draft
15:31:18 <fantasai> jeff: OK, that makes sense. Unsure about the name
15:31:32 <fantasai> tantek: There's a lot of strong political motivations for labelling things a NOTE
15:31:50 <fantasai> tantek: I think a key dynamic to consider is, how will WGs try to use this process and be pressured one way or another
15:31:56 <dsinger> q?
15:31:59 <dsinger> ack flo
15:31:59 <fantasai> tantek: I think it's good to make a decision up front whether NOTE or REC
15:32:12 <fantasai> tantek: so that's helpful
15:32:23 <fantasai> dsinger: Next question is if you want to move from NOTE to REC, how do you do that?
15:32:23 <dsinger> q?
15:32:41 <fantasai> florian: Currently there's nothing preventing copy-paste from document X into a new document on the new track
15:32:47 <tantek> +1 florian just copy paste as you would from anything informal to a brand new WD
15:32:55 <fantasai> florian: the only question is , do we want to switch track without doing such copy-paste
15:33:08 <fantasai> florian: Should group be able to start with WD and decide, this was a mistake, let's switch NOTE
15:33:12 <fantasai> florian: There's support for this
15:33:12 <tantek> right, no back/forth please
15:33:21 <fantasai> florian: There's not really support for switching back and forth
15:33:38 <fantasai> florian: My suggestion is that we take the PR and then tackle that as a follow-up
15:33:58 <fantasai> dsinger: Concern about switching from REC to NOTE, then iterating under NOTE, and then switching back to REC
15:34:19 <fantasai> dsinger: So I think copy-paste is better idea for switching from NOTE to REC track
15:34:29 <tantek> I think a REC-track document MUST NOT be able to terminate as a NOTE any more, that it must terminate as a REC or Discontinued Draft
15:34:30 <weiler> q+
15:34:35 <dsinger> ack weil
15:34:37 <fantasai> dsinger: So would have no transition into REC track other than from the beginning of it
15:34:53 <fantasai> weiler: Think about my experience editing documents (though not at W3C), some documents want to do that
15:35:03 <fantasai> weiler: We want to publish as not-REC now, and then ppl get interested in it later
15:35:17 <fantasai> weiler: as an editor not interested in rewriting what I wrote 3 yrs ago, just going to copy it i
15:35:33 <fantasai> weiler: ... maybe I don't understand
15:35:49 <fantasai> dsinger: you had someting iterating as a NOTE, and then group realizes wants normative, and should be REC
15:36:03 <fantasai> dsinger: You changed your mind, where do you go back onto the REC track?
15:36:12 <fantasai> dsinger: is there a path back onto the REC track other than at FPWD?
15:36:23 <fantasai> weiler: I'm not going to go start with text from 3yrs ago.
15:36:34 <florian> q?
15:36:36 <fantasai> dsinger: You'll start with your current text, and you'll publish as FPWD, and then go down the REC track
15:36:42 <dsinger> ack fant
15:37:03 <jeff> Fantasai: We want to allow jump from WD or CR into Note
15:37:08 <tantek> no
15:37:10 <jeff> ... can we resolve on allowing that?
15:37:18 <tantek> especially with the short name
15:37:38 <jeff> David: Three states in Note track
15:37:40 <fantasai> dsinger: So NOTE track is "Draft Note", "WG-approved Note", "W3C-approved Note"
15:37:47 <fantasai> dsinger: not sure there's a practical problem
15:38:01 <tantek> q+ to note (so to speak) about the longevity / redirection aspect
15:38:01 <fantasai> florian: Seems we haven't explored the question, maybe we should have some async discussion
15:38:12 <fantasai> florian: My suggestion is take in the PR without that part, and can only do copy-paste restart on track
15:38:19 <fantasai> florian: if we want something else, let's come back to that in a call or two
15:38:39 <fantasai> dsinger: ping chairs?
15:38:48 <fantasai> fantasai: I posted to ac-forum, chairs, and spec-prod already about these changes
15:38:58 <fantasai> dsinger: Let's make sure we don't forget any use cases
15:39:07 <fantasai> dsinger: Should we get agreement to pull this?
15:39:19 <fantasai> fantasai: I'm happy to pull and iterate once pulled
15:39:36 <fantasai> tantek: just realized there's a PR. I'm not going to block because haven't read yet
15:39:44 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept the PR, file issues for follow-up
15:40:00 <fantasai> Topic: Upgrading NOTEs to W3C-approved SOMETHINGOROTHER
15:40:14 <fantasai> dsinger: Current word is "Memoranda", unsure anyone loves it
15:40:20 <fantasai> dsinger: but we're not coming up with great alternatives
15:40:35 <fantasai> fantasai: Can we resolve on accepting the PR first?
15:40:45 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept the PR for Memoranda
15:40:53 <tantek> what
15:41:01 <fantasai> s/RESOLVED: Accept the PR for Memoranda/
15:41:05 <fantasai> s/RESOLVED: Accept the PR for Memoranda//
15:41:10 <tantek> for the Discontinued Draft track right
15:41:19 <tantek> er, termination, not track
15:41:28 <jeff> Fantasai: Can we accept the PR before we bikeshed the name
15:41:43 <fantasai> dsinger: AFAIK the only open quesiton is the name, is there anyone with any other concern?
15:41:47 <tantek> please stop asking for resolutions without links
15:41:51 <tantek> seriously unacceptable
15:41:54 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/489
15:42:02 <fantasai> dsinger: I assume ppl have the agenda on hand
15:42:07 <tantek> it's worth capturing in the flow of the minutes for folks raeeading
15:42:10 <fantasai> dsinger: I try to write agendas with extensive cross-linking
15:42:20 <tantek> s/raeeading/reading afterwards
15:42:40 <fantasai> florian: PR does two things, first it enables the AB and the TAG to do NOTEs as well (in addition to IGs and WGs)
15:42:58 <fantasai> florian: and it also enables NOTEs to be elevated to a to-be-named status with AC approval
15:43:04 <tantek> +1 on Discontinued Draft
15:43:09 <tantek> -1 on Memorandum
15:43:15 <tantek> so I'd reject this pull request
15:43:26 <tantek> q?
15:43:31 <fantasai> fantasai: The PR includes the commits from the previous resolution, btw
15:43:35 <dsinger> q?
15:43:41 <fantasai> dsinger: Any open questions other than the name?
15:43:46 <dsinger> ack tantek
15:43:46 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note (so to speak) about the longevity / redirection aspect
15:43:52 <fantasai> tantek: I would suggest breaking up the PR into the parts that have consensus and the ones that don't
15:44:24 <fantasai> florian: You want the PR merged with the name replaced by quesiton marks or what?
15:44:37 <fantasai> florian: I can't merge a PR describing a thing without naming the thing
15:44:58 <fantasai> [discussion of PR mechanics]
15:45:12 <tantek> this is why #489 is confusing
15:45:22 <fantasai> dsinger: Seems we can agree that we can merge as soon as we conclude on a name
15:45:24 <tantek> I'm opposed to another "special name" that needs explanation
15:45:39 <jeff> q+
15:45:48 <fantasai> Proposed names so far include: Report, Memorandum, Position, and Statement
15:45:52 <tantek> I'm starting to think the entire attempt to come up with a special name is useless
15:46:06 <fantasai> jeff: I suggest Communiqué
15:46:25 <fantasai> dsinger: ...
15:46:35 <plh> +1 to merge with Statement
15:46:47 <fantasai> florian: I suggest "W3C Statement" and then if someone has a better name we can change it later
15:46:58 <jrosewell> Statement seems reasonable
15:46:59 <fantasai> dsinger: Anyone opposed to Statement?
15:47:29 <dsinger> q?
15:47:33 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:47:37 <fantasai> dsinger: we want a broad name so that many things can be categorized under them
15:47:48 <fantasai> dsinger: so agreed on Statement as the name du jour
15:47:53 <fantasai> dsinger: and agreed we can execute PR, yes?
15:47:55 <tantek> if it comes from the TAG it should be a TAG Position Statement
15:48:06 <fantasai> we're not subclassing
15:48:07 <plh> q+ to ask a question once we agree to merge
15:48:07 <dsinger> q?
15:48:10 <dsinger> ack plh
15:48:10 <Zakim> plh, you wanted to ask a question once we agree to merge
15:48:30 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR #489 with s/Memorandum/Statement/
15:48:33 <fantasai> Topic: Registries
15:48:43 <fantasai> s/Topic: Registries/
15:48:58 <fantasai> plh: To become a Statement, don't need Director's approval. Just need AC review?
15:49:16 <fantasai> dsinger: if community wants this as a W3C document, gets to be a Statement, FOs handled as normal, etc.
15:49:19 <fantasai> Topic: Registries
15:49:24 <fantasai> florian: We ran a survey
15:49:32 <fantasai> florian: A number of useful answers, and a number of confused answers
15:49:41 <fantasai> florian: I'm only going to speak about unconfused answers until we get clarity
15:49:51 <fantasai> florian: There seems to be preference for a dedicated Registry Track
15:49:58 <fantasai> florian: and there seems to be a preference for no distinction between CR and PR
15:50:15 <fantasai> florian: Third question of whethe Registry Tables should be possible to publish separate from Definition
15:50:33 <fantasai> florian: we got answers that need them and those opposed
15:50:39 <fantasai> florian: that's the interesting open question
15:51:08 <fantasai> florian: Anyone disagree that we have consensus on separate Registry Track with merged CR/PR phase?
15:51:54 <fantasai> dsinger: Anyone disagree? It makes the Process text a bit longer, but more straightforward
15:52:00 <fantasai> dsinger: and also you can include your registry inline into a REC eithe rway
15:52:13 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Separate Registry Track modeled on REC track, no CR phase
15:52:19 <fantasai> dsinger: open question
15:52:37 <fantasai> florian: There seems to be both support and discomfort with having the tables in a separate document than the definition
15:52:47 <fantasai> florian: My main concern is with the complexity that introduces
15:52:55 <fantasai> florian: we need more rules in process doc if they can be separate
15:52:57 <fantasai> florian: example
15:53:04 <fantasai> florian: we have a final, approved Registry Definition
15:53:11 <fantasai> florian: we have a separate publication of Tables
15:53:17 <fantasai> florian: everything is dne
15:53:23 <fantasai> florian: Then we decide we want to add a new column
15:53:40 <fantasai> florian: If everything were in a single document, you can mark it as a proposed change in the Registry document
15:54:03 <fantasai> florian: but if they're in separate documents, then can you add the new column to the Regsitry Tables document before the Registry Definition changes are approved?
15:54:08 <fantasai> florian: It's not clear what should happen
15:54:20 <fantasai> florian: The general principle is, if we have more moving parts, we have more complexity to manage
15:54:37 <fantasai> florian: The second thing is, separate publication is an additional feature from what we have
15:54:50 <fantasai> florian: My suggestion is that we start without it, and if ppl continue to ask for it, do it next year
15:54:54 <dsinger> q?
15:54:56 <fantasai> florian: I don't think it's impossible to define, but it's more moving parts
15:55:12 <fantasai> florian: We have two definitions of the Process, one which has this definition bu thas ambiguities
15:55:25 <fantasai> florian: Another issue is, if we have separate parts, then we need names for each part
15:55:47 <fantasai> florian: In the existing branch of Process where separate publication is allowed, the Definitions must always be on the REC track
15:56:02 <fantasai> florian: but now that we have a Registry Track, if we have separate publications for Definitions and Tables
15:56:12 <fantasai> florian: I'd rather not answer all these questions and keep it simple for now
15:56:18 <fantasai> dsinger: I think we need the set of questions
15:56:37 <fantasai> dsinger: My read of the situation is that this is the common case, we shouldn't ban it
15:56:47 <fantasai> dsinger: Let's see what questions need and try to resolve it
15:57:01 <fantasai> florian: I can try
15:57:20 <jeff> Fantasai: It's common outside of W3C
15:57:35 <jeff> ... but in W3C they tend to incorporate the definition and the registry into a single doc
15:57:44 <jeff> ... unless they are not allowed to update the REC
15:57:55 <jeff> ... Florian's concerns about complications are relevant
15:57:59 <jeff> ... Process Doc is long
15:58:07 <jeff> ... we can avoid that here
15:58:16 <jeff> ... if it becomes an issue we can do it next year
15:58:28 <jeff> ... survey results in detailed showed
15:58:51 <jeff> ... (both those that needed and those that considered harmful) confusion
15:58:54 <florian> q+
15:59:06 <jeff> ... they want easy update which is exactly what Registries give you.
15:59:31 <fantasai> dsinger: If allow publication together, Team needs to check that you didn't modify the wrong parts of the document
15:59:50 <fantasai> fantasai: need to do that anyway, because allowing that already
16:00:01 <fantasai> florian: We have two branches for registries edits
16:00:14 <fantasai> florian: I suggest on the editor's side, we change the two branches of the Process so that they're only different in this specific quesiton
16:00:22 <fantasai> florian: and as part of doing that surface what the remaining issues are
16:00:24 <fantasai> dsinger: Sounds good
16:00:40 <dsinger> q?
16:00:49 <dsinger> ack fant
16:00:53 <florian> q-
16:01:05 <fantasai> dsinger: Didn't get to Recording meetings
16:01:12 <fantasai> dsinger: Can we prepare a PR?
16:01:23 <fantasai> i/dsinger: Didn't/Topic: Recording meetings
16:01:28 <fantasai> florian: I'll try
16:01:52 <fantasai> dsinger: Some discussion about public/perpetual recordings, unsure about banning them, unlikely to get approval from group though
16:01:59 <fantasai> dsinger: anyway let's look into those
16:02:10 <fantasai> Topic: AC Review Comments
16:02:16 <tantek> we need to take steps on recordings towards being more inclusive of diverse realtime participants IMO
16:02:17 <fantasai> dsinger: We need to work through those
16:02:43 <fantasai> dsinger: for issue ?? , if can resolve by accepting PR would be nice
16:03:03 <fantasai> dsinger: wrt Wide Review issues, I think we need some help?
16:03:12 <fantasai> dsinger: suggestion in the issue that it can be closed
16:03:19 <fantasai> dsinger: next meeting March 10th
16:03:27 <dsinger> q?
16:03:28 <fantasai> s/AC Review Comments/Follow-up/
16:03:51 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
16:04:02 <fantasai> dsinger: Thanks everyone for the hard work