14:56:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:56:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-w3process-irc
14:56:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:05 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:59:10 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
15:00:18 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
15:01:00 <florian> present+
15:01:07 <plh> present+
15:01:48 <wseltzer> present+
15:02:11 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:03:58 <plh> scribe+
15:04:45 <plh> Topic: 4 items for 2021 Process
15:05:35 <plh> subtopic: Tooling Policy
15:06:33 <fantasai> present+
15:06:37 <plh> david: [talks about the AB CfC]
15:06:41 <cwilso> present+
15:06:56 <plh> ... should/must for retention records
15:07:08 <dsinger> q?
15:07:10 <jeff> q+
15:07:26 <florian> q+
15:07:31 <plh> ack je
15:07:34 <dsinger> ack jef
15:07:44 <plh> jeff: which CfC was that?
15:08:28 <jeff> q+
15:09:05 <plh> ack je
15:09:07 <dsinger> ack jef
15:09:37 <plh> Jeff: the AB CfC did not get the 8 supporters and got a -1 from me
15:09:59 <plh> ... regarding getting should/must
15:10:22 <plh> ... so we didn't get AB consensus on this one
15:10:38 <plh> David: so we got a lot of people missing
15:11:05 <plh> florian: I don't think we're done going through the conclusions from the AB but no one changed their support
15:11:22 <plh> ... there will be request for changes to the wording in any case
15:11:50 <plh> jeff: agreed, I think we can make some progress on this
15:12:23 <wseltzer> q+
15:12:35 <wseltzer> q-
15:12:58 <plh> jeff: agreed that it has to be a must ultimately
15:13:17 <plh> fantasai: for the implementation of must for minutes/decision, we're not far away
15:13:41 <jeff> q+
15:13:49 <florian> q-
15:13:56 <plh> ... we're not deploying the process immediately. don't think we'll have troubles to bring everyone in line
15:14:30 <plh> david: ok, should try to revise the wording and wait for plh to give the results of his survey
15:14:53 <jeff> q-
15:14:57 <plh> jeff: one Group was sloppy in the past
15:15:06 <dsinger> q?
15:15:15 <plh> q+
15:15:47 <dsinger> ack plh
15:15:52 <plh> jeff: it's easy if the group wants to do it but if the group does not want, we'll need to discuss with them
15:16:07 <jeff> PLH: I don't imagine a group refusing
15:16:13 <jeff> ... could be a technical problem
15:16:15 <jeff> scribe+
15:16:30 <jeff> ... may want a system to drop GoogleDocs into an email/gh
15:16:36 <jeff> ... don't have tools today
15:16:44 <jeff> Florian: Tool is trivial
15:16:54 <jeff> PLH: If you do it manually
15:16:54 <fantasai> s/trivial/trivial: export to PDF, send an email, done/
15:17:06 <dsinger> q?
15:17:19 <plh> subtopic: recording meetings
15:17:36 <dsinger> q?
15:17:41 <plh> david: should we differ and take it offline?
15:17:47 <plh> florian: agreed
15:17:49 <wseltzer> s/differ/defer/
15:17:51 <jeff> s/differ/defer/
15:17:55 <cwilso> q+
15:18:22 <plh> david: for routine meetings, we shouldn't have recordings but there might be exceptions for some meetings
15:18:35 <fantasai> s/david/florian/
15:18:57 <jeff> q+ a small point about recording of meetings
15:19:01 <jeff> q+
15:19:08 <dsinger> ack jef
15:19:11 <plh> david: I don't have strong feelings. let's the discussion going on github
15:19:13 <dsinger> q+ jeff
15:19:17 <jeff> q+ to make a small point about recording of meetings
15:19:20 <plh> ack cw
15:19:20 <dsinger> ack cwil
15:19:36 <plh> Chris: we have an internal discussion on this as well and no conclusion yet
15:19:40 <plh> David: same for is
15:19:45 <plh> s/is/us/
15:20:08 <plh> fantasai: we could put the part about not doing it unless there is consent
15:20:27 <cwilso> +1
15:20:34 <plh> ... we can adopt what david has and further refine
15:20:47 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/334#issuecomment-793173149
15:20:53 <plh> chris: current is more that just consent
15:21:12 <plh> florian: we can adopt unless it's too strong
15:21:24 <plh> chris: yes, this is fine
15:21:42 <cwilso> +!
15:21:45 <cwilso> er, +1
15:21:47 <wseltzer> q+
15:21:48 <dsinger> q?
15:21:53 <plh> Proposed: Adopt David's proposed text and continue the discussion for further tweaking
15:21:53 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:21:53 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to make a small point about recording of meetings
15:22:20 <plh> Jeff: I noticed a pushback from Dom.
15:22:37 <plh> Florian: it's against my further restriction, not against David's text
15:22:55 <plh> Jeff: also there is text that I'd like to see in the Process and not the Guide
15:23:36 <plh> ... the current proposed  text doesn't balance things well
15:23:47 <plh> fantasai: you're asking on the informative, not the normative part?
15:23:50 <plh> Jeff: correct
15:24:07 <wseltzer> +1 to deleting the Note
15:24:28 <plh> David: we could delete the Note and we could push all of the guidances to /Guide
15:24:35 <dsinger> q?
15:24:43 <dsinger> ack ws
15:25:15 <plh> wseltzer: the single normative paragraph should go in the Process, and the rest should go into the Guide
15:25:27 <dsinger> q?
15:26:07 <plh> fantasai: we could keep some of the sentences from the Note
15:26:13 <plh> florian: let's not have the Note for now
15:26:17 <plh> fantasai: fine
15:26:22 <plh> david: fine by me
15:26:52 <fantasai> s/we could keep some of the sentences from the Note/would suggest to delete the first sentence of the note and keep the second, which is an example showing why the retention policy matters. But I'm ok with not having the note/
15:26:55 <plh> Resolved: Adopt David's single paragraph policy and continue the discussion for further tweaking
15:26:59 <wseltzer> The text: [[No-one may record a meeting, or retain an automated transcript, unless the intent is announced at the start of the meeting, and no-one withholds consent. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur. The announcement must cover: (a) who will have access to the recording or transcript and (b) the purpose/use of it and (c) how it will be retained (e.g. privately, in a
15:27:05 <wseltzer> cloud service) and for how long.]]
15:27:13 <plh> subtopic: Registries
15:27:31 <dsinger> Registries: see also <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2021Mar/0001.html>
15:27:51 <plh> fantasai: let's tackle the question about accepting the process overall and then there is a further refinement to consider
15:28:24 <plh> florian: the base branch is an evolution: separate track, no CR phase.
15:28:32 <plh> ... shouldn't be controversial
15:29:03 <plh> ... for the additional part, it's about publishing the registry tables in a separate technical report
15:29:25 <plh> ... if we agree, there will be some details to work out
15:29:25 <jeff> q+ to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
15:29:44 <dsinger> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/
15:30:02 <plh> david: are we ready to adopt https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/ ?
15:30:18 <dsinger> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/#registries
15:30:22 <dsinger> q?
15:30:26 <dsinger> ack jef
15:30:26 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
15:30:59 <dsinger> q+ jeff
15:31:06 <dsinger> q?
15:31:16 <wseltzer> q+ re Registry Reports and Patent Policy
15:31:19 <jeff> q+ to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
15:31:23 <jeff> q- later
15:31:25 <plh> Proposed: adopt https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/#registries
15:31:26 <dsinger> ack ws
15:31:26 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss Registry Reports and Patent Policy
15:31:46 <plh> wseltzer: just noticed the exclusion from the patent policy
15:32:02 <plh> ... not sure there is complete agreement
15:32:20 <plh> david: registry is purely informative
15:32:34 <plh> ... implementation requirements are to go in Rec-track
15:32:47 <plh> wseltzer: better way to express that then
15:32:54 <fantasai> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/#rec-advance
15:33:23 <fantasai> Working Groups can also publish registries in order to document collections of values or other data that have no normative implementation requirements. Registries are generally companion to Recommendation Track documents which contain the related normative requirements, and are typically published in a separate registry report, although they can also be directly embedded in Recommendation Track
15:33:29 <fantasai> documents. The registry track requires wide review and consensus on what the registry will contain and how it will be managed. Once set up, changes to registry entries are lightweight and can even be done without a Working Group. See § 6.4 The Registry Track for details.
15:33:51 <plh> florian: since the reigstry track is not the rec-track, it's excluded from the patent policy construction
15:34:25 <plh> ... we could tweak this sentence, but things that can be subject to the patent policy don't belong in the registry track
15:34:31 <plh> wseltzer: makes sense
15:34:51 <plh> ... but let's avoid contention, so better phrasing would be good
15:36:07 <wseltzer> q+
15:36:12 <jeff> q- later
15:36:19 <dsinger> ack ws
15:36:20 <plh> fantasai: we could move text around after the merge
15:36:39 <plh> wseltzer: or eliminate the first clause on that sentence?
15:36:53 <plh> david: I can live with that
15:37:11 <wseltzer> s/first clause on that sentence/first clause, or better, the entire bullet point
15:37:27 <plh> fantasai: it's good to remind folks about what's happening
15:37:49 <plh> ... we don't talk about the patent policy otherwise in that section
15:38:19 <fantasai> s/section/section which is why it's confusing. The intro section should talk about it./
15:38:22 <dsinger> q?
15:38:48 <wseltzer> q+
15:38:51 <plh> florian: preference for merging as-is and tweaking later
15:39:19 <plh> wseltzer: I'm ok with merge+tweak if we do the tweaks quickly
15:39:30 <plh> ... we'll need a draft to PSIG soon
15:39:53 <plh> florian: ok to do the tweaks quicky
15:40:13 <plh> Resolved: adopt https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries/#registries
15:40:15 <jeff> ack ws
15:40:51 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/commit/671735ae81050ab52a9f00921c4c81bd12e4dc54
15:40:57 <fantasai> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries-separable%2F
15:41:18 <fantasai> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries-separable/#reg-pub
15:41:35 <fantasai> new section defining registry data reports https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/registries-separable/#registry-data-report
15:41:36 <wseltzer> +1 to "tweaked version"
15:41:36 <plh> Florian: you can link to a separate document for the tables
15:42:16 <plh> q+
15:42:23 <jeff> q- later
15:42:23 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/503
15:42:28 <dsinger> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries-separable%2F#reg-pub
15:42:41 <dsinger> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2Fregistries-separable%2F#reg-data-reports
15:43:08 <plh> david: it seems simple enough
15:43:35 <plh> florian: you can always publish a /TR document in multiple files
15:43:42 <plh> q?
15:44:08 <fantasai> fantasai: This is just about whether you can publish the tables under a different shortname from the registry definition
15:44:34 <plh> david: so if I want the registry definition and the table , can I do that under the same /TR?
15:44:40 <dsinger> ack plh
15:45:10 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
15:45:18 <fantasai> plh: Trying to understand. have a document called a registry, publish on registry track
15:45:36 <fantasai> plh: Now you're proposing in order to publish separately the tables, need to add a new type of technical report called a "registry data report"
15:45:52 <fantasai> dsinger: So that you can back it by a different automated system
15:46:02 <cwilso> q+ to suggest, BTW, that PSIG should be informed of registry plans to make sure they don't have advice.
15:46:10 <fantasai> dsinger: registry data reports exist in this boundary state, they're not controlled by the Process
15:46:16 <fantasai> dsinger: are they technical report or not? Kindo fon the boundary
15:46:18 <jeff> q- later
15:46:30 <dsinger> ack cwi
15:46:30 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest, BTW, that PSIG should be informed of registry plans to make sure they don't have advice.
15:46:49 <fantasai> cwilso: We should know PSIG about registries, btw
15:47:14 <dsinger> q?
15:47:18 <dsinger> ack flo
15:47:19 <fantasai> florian: soon, but not just yet, we have some sentence to tweak as wseltzer requested :)
15:47:33 <fantasai> florian: The registry report, when it contains everything, contains two pieces. one is the rules and the other is the table.s
15:47:41 <fantasai> florian: If you want you can have all of that in a REC
15:47:50 <fantasai> florian: You can also have it as a separate document on the Registry Track
15:47:56 <fantasai> florian: When you have both the rules and the tables, that's a Registry Report
15:48:08 <fantasai> florian: The question is, can you have the tables separate from the rules.
15:48:13 <fantasai> florian: I believe this is mostly not useful.
15:48:22 <fantasai> florian: Given we can have multiple files in a publication
15:48:44 <fantasai> florian: like CSS2.1 is multiple chapters
15:48:52 <fantasai> florian: ...
15:49:34 <fantasai> florian: The change we're discussing right now is whether we should allow the tables in a separate *technical report*
15:49:48 <fantasai> florian: If we don't adopt the change, you can put everything in a REC, or everything in a Registry Report.
15:49:59 <wseltzer> q+
15:50:06 <fantasai> florian: If we adopt the change, then can split the Registry into two reports, one for the rules and one for the tables
15:50:12 <jeff> q- later
15:50:19 <fantasai> dsinger: Florian and I disagree on whether this is necessary
15:50:29 <fantasai> florian: I dislike it, I think it's unnecessary, but I can live with the way it's drafted rightnow
15:50:29 <dsinger> q?
15:50:34 <dsinger> ack ws
15:50:36 <fantasai> +1 to florian from fantasai
15:50:42 <fantasai> wseltzer: I support this change
15:50:49 <fantasai> wseltzer: I think it helps people who are familiar with IANA process
15:51:17 <fantasai> dsinger: I think we avoid the mistakes of ISO/IANA of hosting the registries in different organizations
15:51:30 <fantasai> dsinger: couldn't find tables for XXX for example, which is appalling
15:51:41 <fantasai> dsinger: I like what we have here
15:52:21 <fantasai> dsinger: My take is, given the inconclusiveness of the survey, send it out for review with
15:52:41 <dsinger> q?
15:52:52 <fantasai> florian: My alternative proposal is leave it out for the year, if it's actually needed and requested, we can add it next year
15:53:40 <fantasai> florian: Wrt the survey, was "2 considered it harmful" and "2 thought it necessary". We followed up, one of the "harmful" ppl was just confused, and one of the "necessary" people concluded it's not actually necessary
15:54:03 <fantasai> plh: I like the flexibility of the proposed addition
15:54:08 <fantasai> plh: Makes things slightly more complex
15:54:16 <fantasai> plh: but gives a bit more flexibility also
15:54:34 <fantasai> dsinger: OK, let's merge with this. Fix it up so we can send to PSIG
15:54:55 <fantasai> dsinger: No decision is final, still have to get through AB and informal AC reveiw, and formal AC review
15:54:56 <wseltzer> action: wseltzer to do a patent-policy focused review of registries
15:55:07 <fantasai> florian: Don't like it, not objecting.
15:55:24 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge separate registry tables reports change.
15:56:04 <fantasai> fantasai: Do we want to highlight the change with <INS> or just leave it and let people notice or not?
15:56:10 <fantasai> dsinger: Let's not highlight the issue.
15:56:39 <fantasai> subtopic: recording of meetings
15:56:39 <dsinger> ack jef
15:56:39 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to go back to recording of meetings when we are done with registries
15:57:04 <fantasai> jeff: I reread Dom's posting, and not convinced dsinger's text is consistent with it
15:57:41 <fantasai> jeff: Gives example of workshop and recording presentations without everyone's consent
15:57:42 <wseltzer> q+ re consent, even to presentation
15:58:42 <florian> q?
15:58:47 <wseltzer> q-
15:59:11 <fantasai> wseltzer: Even for presentations, consent is required. Might be easier to get consent, but still require it
15:59:30 <fantasai> subtopic: note-track
16:00:03 <fantasai> florian: Didn't do my homework on opening new issues, one on bikeshedding TAG documents, and the other on the switching-tracks question. I'll do that soon.
16:01:28 <fantasai> [discussion of meeting and review scheduling]
16:01:54 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
16:02:02 <fantasai> Meeting adjourned.
16:02:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-w3process-minutes.html fantasai