IRC log of w3process on 2021-03-10
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 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