IRC log of w3process on 2021-04-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:53:52 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #w3process
- 13:53:52 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-w3process-irc
- 13:53:54 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 13:53:56 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
- 14:01:41 [jrosewell_]
- jrosewell_ has joined #w3process
- 14:01:59 [jrosewell__]
- jrosewell__ has joined #w3process
- 14:02:27 [weiler]
- present+
- 14:02:52 [wseltzer]
- present+
- 14:03:26 [fantasai]
- ScribeNick: fantasai
- 14:03:31 [fantasai]
- Topic: Agenda Bashing
- 14:03:57 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Coments on agenda?
- 14:04:15 [fantasai]
- Topic: PSIG Report
- 14:04:46 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Lengthy discussion of registries track
- 14:04:54 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: PSIG came away with an understanding of what we were aiming to do here
- 14:05:09 [plh]
- plh has joined #w3process
- 14:05:16 [plh]
- present+ plh
- 14:05:25 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: asked some questions primarily around, was there sufficient clarity on what can be in a registry data table to ensure we don't get material put directly into the registry
- 14:05:40 [fantasai]
- wseltzer:to give comfort with the registry track not being subject to patent policy
- 14:05:54 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: I invited ppl to come share their questions or comments with the process cg
- 14:06:01 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: We didn't take a formal PSIG resolution
- 14:06:18 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Wanted to ask Process CG to ask if wanted anything specific from PSIG
- 14:06:25 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:06:47 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: We also brought to them their attention the Process edits on recording of meetings
- 14:06:52 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: there was no discussion, just heads up
- 14:07:09 [jeff]
- scribe+
- 14:07:23 [jeff]
- Fantasai: Being clear that no patented material allowed in data tables
- 14:07:37 [jeff]
- ... Mike Gelblum questioned what we said
- 14:07:47 [jeff]
- ... we said no normative stuff in registries
- 14:07:51 [wseltzer]
- s/Mike Gelblum/someone/
- 14:08:04 [jeff]
- ... but tokens for algorithms could be in registeries
- 14:08:20 [jeff]
- ... but indirect references are already not covered by PP
- 14:08:25 [jeff]
- ... so the same what we have
- 14:08:38 [jeff]
- ... we shouldn't exclude something from registry track
- 14:08:44 [jeff]
- ack fan
- 14:09:13 [fantasai]
- ... while we are wording the recordings
- 14:09:33 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Suppose we had a registry of W3C abbreviations. There would be no external references, but still a useful registry.
- 14:09:50 [fantasai]
- florian: The issue is about referencing normative texts.
- 14:10:06 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Concern is around patentable things, like algorithms
- 14:10:49 [fantasai]
- fantasai: E.g. EME registration of formats that link to their specs
- 14:11:01 [fantasai]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-eme-initdata-registry-20160510/#entry-requirements
- 14:11:10 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Should we ban RFC2119 words?
- 14:11:23 [fantasai]
- florian: There are other ways to normatively describe requirements
- 14:11:42 [fantasai]
- plh: Also registry definition has to use those
- 14:11:49 [fantasai]
- florian: Right. But those apply to people, not to implementations.
- 14:12:02 [fantasai]
- florian: I don't think there's a real problem, just PSIG getting acquainted with the topic
- 14:12:21 [fantasai]
- florian: Not obvious to me the current wording is problematic, just noticed that the topic is worth consideration, and has problematic areas if not defined well
- 14:12:32 [fantasai]
- florian: Don't think they've had enough time to look at wording one way or another
- 14:12:40 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: I didn't get any specific change requests from them
- 14:13:07 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Question of registry definition being under Patent Policy or not, any discussion there?
- 14:13:10 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Not really
- 14:13:19 [fantasai]
- florian: We put it on their radar, they're aware of the topic
- 14:13:31 [fantasai]
- florian: but should probably assume it's fine until they tell us it's not, but give them some time
- 14:13:50 [fantasai]
- dsinger: We've got several cycles of review, so not imminently publishing anyway
- 14:13:50 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:13:54 [dsinger]
- ack jeff
- 14:14:05 [fantasai]
- jeff: dsinger had asked whether we should get a resolution approved by PSIG
- 14:14:07 [fantasai]
- jeff: I think yes
- 14:14:13 [fantasai]
- jeff: Since questions have been asked and concerns mentioned
- 14:14:31 [fantasai]
- jeff: Would rather start the dialog with them earlier, and cleanest way is to ask for a crisp resolution
- 14:14:42 [fantasai]
- jeff: Maybe suggest a resolution
- 14:14:48 [fantasai]
- jeff: Would be wise to get them to say yay or nay
- 14:15:05 [fantasai]
- jeff: if unable to answer question, we would learn something from that
- 14:15:13 [fantasai]
- jeff: better to learn sooner than that
- 14:15:42 [fantasai]
- florian: the Process text is clear about interaction with PP atm, what kind of resolution do we want, to restate the text? to accept the text?
- 14:16:05 [fantasai]
- jeff: Not sure what resolution is, maybe just no problems forseen in the existing Process text
- 14:16:14 [fantasai]
- jeff: Don't want PSIG to raise concern at the last hour
- 14:16:58 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Maybe, wseltzer, can you get back to PSIG that we'll keep going, and then will send for review and would want PSIG to weigh in by then
- 14:17:10 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Will look into copying Process 2020 process
- 14:17:19 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:17:45 [fantasai]
- florian: fantasai, you had some concern about how REC docs reference registries, do we need to tweak that text?
- 14:17:53 [fantasai]
- fantasai too tired to know
- 14:18:11 [fantasai]
- florian: So we might need to do some tweaking
- 14:18:20 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Not promising our text is frozen anyway
- 14:18:32 [fantasai]
- ACTION fantasai figure out if any tweaks need to be made
- 14:18:41 [fantasai]
- ACTION fantasai: figure out if any tweaks need to be made
- 14:18:52 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:18:54 [fantasai]
- florian: ...
- 14:19:10 [fantasai]
- Topic: Editor's status report
- 14:19:22 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Other than Tooling, do we need to land anything?
- 14:19:36 [fantasai]
- florian: disclaimer, very long day and may be forgetting things
- 14:19:44 [fantasai]
- florian: I believe we have to finish registries, in there, has to be right
- 14:19:54 [fantasai]
- florian: need to discuss switching of tracks, that will need to land as well
- 14:20:09 [fantasai]
- florian: I think it would be desirable to close the issue on minutes
- 14:20:28 [fantasai]
- florian: Would be good to take Tooling and Chairing, but they're independent pieces.
- 14:20:35 [fantasai]
- florian: I would like to draw the line to include those
- 14:20:40 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:20:42 [fantasai]
- dsinger: But draft is up to date with resolutions?
- 14:20:43 [fantasai]
- florian: yes
- 14:20:58 [fantasai]
- Topic: Issue Triage
- 14:21:15 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Didn't notice anything new and pressing
- 14:21:31 [fantasai]
- dsinger: also I forgot to remove Agenda+ from some issues, might not really need discussion
- 14:21:35 [fantasai]
- Topic: Switching Tracks
- 14:21:42 [dsinger]
- Switching Tracks #509 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/509>
- 14:21:52 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/509
- 14:22:03 [fantasai]
- florian: I'm happy with the text in the PR now
- 14:22:13 [fantasai]
- florian: Anyone else with comments?
- 14:22:22 [fantasai]
- dsinger: basically if you switch tracks, you start at the beginning
- 14:22:31 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:22:38 [fantasai]
- florian: Yes, the only nuance is that there are Patent implementations for switching to/from REC
- 14:22:52 [fantasai]
- florian: Better than copy-paste, because maintain some commitments from before
- 14:23:08 [fantasai]
- florian: but it's tricky, so we want people to pay attention to that when switching to/from REC
- 14:23:24 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:23:25 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:23:34 [fantasai]
- florian: "A [=technical report=] should not switch away from the [=Recommendation Track=]
- 14:23:37 [fantasai]
- without due consideration of the Patent Policy implications
- 14:23:40 [fantasai]
- and approval of the W3C’s legal counsel
- 14:23:42 [fantasai]
- if the Working Group envisions a likelihood of returning to it later."
- 14:23:45 [wseltzer]
- q+
- 14:23:52 [fantasai]
- florian: You can do it, but we want to avoid doing it accidentally
- 14:24:08 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:24:12 [dsinger]
- ack jeff
- 14:24:21 [fantasai]
- florian: The check is on leaving the REC track, not returning, because if you need to return to REC track the best thing to do is return to it. But in that case ideally shouldn't have switched away from REC in the first place.
- 14:24:33 [fantasai]
- jeff: Curious if we've shared this one with PSIG and asked for any input?
- 14:24:48 [fantasai]
- florian: I don't believe we have. Also note this doesn't introduce a new possibility. You can currently go from REC to NOTE and back today.
- 14:25:08 [fantasai]
- florian: It's the separation of tracks that we created earlier that makes this switching tracks section necessary
- 14:25:14 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:25:16 [dsinger]
- ack ws
- 14:25:20 [fantasai]
- dsinger: We currently mandate abandoned WDs to switch to NOTE
- 14:25:55 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Am I correct that the reason we prohibit REC and PRD switching to NOTE is to avoid confusion about status under shortname?
- 14:26:08 [fantasai]
- florian: There's a designated status for abandoned RECs/PRDs (not a NOTE)
- 14:26:17 [fantasai]
- dsinger: You've completed the track, so
- 14:26:32 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Why do we have that restriction?
- 14:26:49 [fantasai]
- florian: The most important is PRD
- 14:27:06 [fantasai]
- florian: Seems weird to switch from "we made a spec with patent commitments, but decided it shouldn't be" seems weird
- 14:27:25 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: I'd rather have us make it clear to people what the recommended things to do are, rather than prohobit things
- 14:27:39 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: If ancient piece of tech in this PRD, want to use it as exemplary text for something else
- 14:27:52 [fantasai]
- florian: This statement doesn't prohibit copy-paste. You can take the content of your PRD and make it something esle.
- 14:28:04 [fantasai]
- florian: but if you have a PRD and want to rescind it, can do that.
- 14:28:23 [fantasai]
- florian: If you have a PRD, and ppl have implemented it, and then you decide to make it a Note, that's ...
- 14:28:28 [fantasai]
- florian: It's weird, nobody wants it, don't do it.
- 14:28:31 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:28:53 [fantasai]
- florian: and it's easy to relax restrictions later if we feel like it, but it's hard to undo the problem
- 14:29:20 [fantasai]
- florian: If you change PRD to NOTE, material in PRD is still under patent protection, but that would be very non-obvious from the most recently published NOTE
- 14:29:25 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:29:28 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Seems fine. Grammar suggestion.
- 14:29:34 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Consensus to include?
- 14:29:37 [fantasai]
- +1
- 14:29:44 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:29:52 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Merge PR for #509
- 14:30:16 [fantasai]
- Topic: Alternate AC Rep
- 14:30:22 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/505
- 14:30:37 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Do we want to do this? We or the AB need to ask what's practical, not overdefine
- 14:30:51 [fantasai]
- florian: I suspect we want to ask Systeam and the legal side.
- 14:31:01 [fantasai]
- florian: My sense is that this is desirable, but we need to make sure it's possible
- 14:31:06 [fantasai]
- florian: in both respects
- 14:31:14 [fantasai]
- florian: I can imagine ways it's not a problem, but that doesn't mean it's right
- 14:31:14 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:31:21 [dsinger]
- ack jef
- 14:31:55 [fantasai]
- jeff: I haven't reviewed the legal issues, but I wonder if there are engineering approaches to dealing with this that get us close enough that don't require changin process or legal things
- 14:31:59 [fantasai]
- jeff: Two components
- 14:32:12 [fantasai]
- jeff: One is keeping multiple alternates informed. ML forwarding, not exactly a challenge.
- 14:32:18 [fantasai]
- dsinger: it's ballots that's the concern
- 14:32:26 [fantasai]
- jeff: The second thing is the formal things
- 14:32:35 [florian]
- q+
- 14:32:41 [fantasai]
- jeff: a really clunky engineering thing is temporary changes of AC rep
- 14:32:44 [fantasai]
- jeff: clunky but doable
- 14:32:55 [fantasai]
- jeff: Seems like that's doable today with no change
- 14:33:04 [TallTed]
- planned absence is relatively easily handled; unplanned is where it really matters
- 14:33:09 [jrosewell__]
- For those where this is a major issue then the AC Rep can be changed temporarily. How big an issue is this in practice? How important is this compared to other issues?
- 14:33:10 [fantasai]
- jeff: What's the pain of doing that, compared to complexity of legal process issues
- 14:33:26 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Can we do this in a way that minimizes the legal and practical pain
- 14:33:33 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Conversation for the Team
- 14:33:33 [wseltzer]
- q+
- 14:33:39 [fantasai]
- florian: sort of thing Jeff just suggested seems to work
- 14:33:54 [jeff]
- ack fl
- 14:33:59 [fantasai]
- florian: I'm not concerned about the ballots, we always keep the latest one
- 14:34:21 [fantasai]
- florian: What may not necessarily be fine is that AC rep can do some things that cannot be undone
- 14:34:30 [fantasai]
- florian: Joining a WG has patent implications that you can't undo by leaving
- 14:34:59 [fantasai]
- florian: Implementation doesn't matter, we can just say we switch back and forth and that's fine, but what if there's a conflict?
- 14:35:03 [fantasai]
- jeff: caveat emptor
- 14:35:21 [fantasai]
- jeff: In my solution, or in the formal alternate AC rep solution, if an organization makes that change, they have to live with it
- 14:35:42 [dsinger]
- ack flo
- 14:35:46 [fantasai]
- dsinger: They chose that person. Sounds like a management problem on their part
- 14:35:46 [dsinger]
- ack ws
- 14:36:25 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: I'd love to get more AC input on this question. People so far have said it would be convenient to delegate this role. I wonder if anyone sees it as a valuable limitation, that there is only one person who can hold this role
- 14:36:46 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Some considerations, e.g. have to double people ot reach out to if trying to reach out AC reps, etc.
- 14:36:54 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: is this a feature?
- 14:37:04 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Also of course I want to make sure we do it carefully enough
- 14:37:15 [fantasai]
- dsinger: OK, I will send a message to AC-forum requesting input from AC reps
- 14:37:18 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:37:18 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:37:27 [fantasai]
- ACTION dsinger: Ask ac-forum about alternate AC reps
- 14:37:28 [dsinger]
- ack fant
- 14:37:42 [dsinger]
- ack jef
- 14:37:42 [wseltzer]
- s/carefully enough/carefully to get the legally binding representation/
- 14:37:56 [fantasai]
- jeff: I'm not convinced we're ready to ask, because we don't have a proposal
- 14:38:11 [fantasai]
- jeff: I don't want to ask the AC conceptually, if need many changes
- 14:38:30 [jrosewell__]
- Agree with Jeff
- 14:38:38 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Let's leave it then, Jeff and Wendy will talk to the Team
- 14:38:55 [fantasai]
- dsinger: wseltzer would look at what would be binding, and Team will look into what's implementable
- 14:38:59 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Let's leave this to the Team
- 14:39:06 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:39:45 [jrosewell__]
- q+
- 14:40:08 [fantasai]
- jeff: I would like a straw poll, whether the instinctive reaction is more towards a formal definition or is instinctive reaction towards an engineering solution where we can do this within existing Process
- 14:40:11 [jeff]
- ack je
- 14:40:25 [fantasai]
- dsinger: If I could nominate an alternate, probably me and Tess would designate each other
- 14:40:39 [fantasai]
- dsinger: so if can do as a semi-permanent thing, would be better than fiddling with database
- 14:40:41 [TallTed]
- durable Alternate solves many more problems than engineering reassignment
- 14:40:51 [wseltzer]
- q?
- 14:41:05 [dsinger]
- ack jrose
- 14:41:08 [TallTed]
- q+
- 14:41:13 [fantasai]
- jrosewell__: I agree with jeff's comment earlier. Should have a proposla
- 14:41:13 [dsinger]
- ack fant
- 14:41:52 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:41:59 [dsinger]
- ack tall
- 14:42:05 [fantasai]
- fantasai: Could do Jeff's solution, just put people on a list of "people who're allowed to set the AC rep of my org"
- 14:42:08 [fantasai]
- TallTed: Interesting idea
- 14:42:26 [fantasai]
- TallTed: Something happens suddenly, can't set alternate
- 14:42:40 [fantasai]
- TallTed: So some kind of set-up that can handle such things
- 14:43:18 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:43:36 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Seems that some solution might be desirable, not sure what.
- 14:43:43 [fantasai]
- dsinger: so going to leave this with the Team
- 14:44:02 [fantasai]
- Topic: Define Minutes
- 14:44:09 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/511
- 14:44:18 [fantasai]
- dsinger: We discussed in previous meeting, can't remember conclusion
- 14:44:31 [fantasai]
- florian: IIRC we were in almost agreement, and then wseltzer quesiton some of the phrasing, which was later fixed
- 14:44:38 [fantasai]
- florian: so once we had that agreement, I merged it
- 14:44:47 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Anybody think we got this wrong or should I take off agenda?
- 14:44:48 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:44:52 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: close issue
- 14:45:13 [fantasai]
- Topic: Suspension/ removal for cause
- 14:45:18 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Can't remember why it's on the agenda
- 14:45:22 [fantasai]
- florian: I think we tlaked about it already.
- 14:45:42 [fantasai]
- florian: We had refactored this section in parallel
- 14:45:53 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:45:55 [fantasai]
- florian: This issue isn't closed because not fixed on Director-free branch
- 14:46:06 [fantasai]
- florian: So maybe we should close, and let DF branch will solve by rebasing
- 14:46:20 [fantasai]
- jeff: it's for DF, we're not doing that in P2021
- 14:46:34 [fantasai]
- dsinger: OK, removing Agenda+
- 14:46:49 [fantasai]
- Topic: Improve AB Chairing
- 14:47:05 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/514
- 14:47:12 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:47:17 [dsinger]
- ack jeff
- 14:47:18 [fantasai]
- fantasai: AB gave us conceptual agreement, and a number of AB members have approved the text in the proposal
- 14:47:18 [jeff]
- q-
- 14:47:25 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:47:26 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I suggest we just merge it into Process 2021
- 14:47:36 [fantasai]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/514#issuecomment-811301324
- 14:47:54 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:48:03 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Approve?
- 14:48:05 [fantasai]
- [silence]
- 14:48:12 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Accept proposed text
- 14:48:15 [jeff]
- -.1
- 14:49:05 [fantasai]
- jeff: I think text of resolution is fine. i've shared in other discussions think we should incubate before changing Process text, but don't really object, so if consensus then happy to yield to consensus
- 14:49:21 [fantasai]
- dsinger: I'm with you, but I'm also aware Chris and others who want Process updated aren't here
- 14:49:30 [fantasai]
- dsinger: we can always back it out if necessary
- 14:49:41 [fantasai]
- Topic: Tooling
- 14:49:44 [weiler]
- q+
- 14:49:49 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/436
- 14:49:58 [fantasai]
- dsinger: I think we're settling on MUSt only for recordkeeping
- 14:50:09 [fantasai]
- dsinger: We've got continued debate on geographical restricitons
- 14:50:16 [fantasai]
- dsinger: nobody is on either extreme of the argument
- 14:51:04 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Somewhere between those two polar opposites is where we need to land, and that's what RFC2119 SHOULD is about
- 14:51:06 [weiler]
- q?
- 14:51:08 [fantasai]
- 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
- 14:51:08 [fantasai]
- may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
- 14:51:08 [fantasai]
- particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
- 14:51:08 [fantasai]
- carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
- 14:51:33 [fantasai]
- florian: If country has citizens has people who want to participate cannot, is a problem
- 14:51:47 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Does that automatically mean we can't use the tool even if no viable alternative?
- 14:51:54 [fantasai]
- ... find a workaround for them?
- 14:51:56 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:52:00 [fantasai]
- dsinger: other opinions?
- 14:52:01 [dsinger]
- ack weil
- 14:52:10 [fantasai]
- weiler: interesting geographical and political
- 14:52:35 [fantasai]
- weiler: In the interest of moving the overall section forward, may I suggest we strike geographical bit?
- 14:52:40 [fantasai]
- weiler: and argue over it for another year?
- 14:52:51 [fantasai]
- weiler: You don't have consensus over geography text
- 14:53:09 [fantasai]
- weiler: Would want ppl who are affected involved
- 14:53:17 [dsinger]
- ack fant
- 14:53:21 [fantasai]
- florian: we've had such peeople involved
- 14:53:29 [jeff]
- scribe:
- 14:53:49 [jeff]
- Fantasai: We need to take geographic restrictions into account when selecting our tooling
- 14:54:00 [jeff]
- ... people would like that considered
- 14:54:13 [jeff]
- ... we made it a SHOULD so it could be a consideration
- 14:54:16 [dsinger]
- q+
- 14:54:28 [jeff]
- ... striking this and never putting it back would be unacceptable
- 14:54:35 [jeff]
- ... can you live with a SHOULD?
- 14:54:48 [jeff]
- ... people in regions affected would like an effort to include them.
- 14:54:51 [fantasai]
- weiler: No, I can't live with this.
- 14:55:02 [florian]
- q+
- 14:55:02 [fantasai]
- weiler: I might if some caveats around it, but don't want even with a SHOULD.
- 14:55:03 [jeff]
- q+
- 14:55:25 [fantasai]
- dsinger: [quotes text]
- 14:55:41 [fantasai]
- "Any tooling used by the group for producing its documentation and deliverables or for official group discussions should be usable without additional cost by all who wish to participate, to allow their effective participation regardless of disability or geographical location."
- 14:55:54 [fantasai]
- dsinger: We can leave out "regardless of disability or geographical location"
- 14:56:15 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Sentence would have same impact, just draw less attention to it
- 14:56:18 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:56:21 [dsinger]
- ack ds
- 14:56:22 [fantasai]
- dsinger: thoughts on that?
- 14:56:25 [dsinger]
- ack flo
- 14:56:44 [fantasai]
- florian: I think that approach might work. personally I'm also satisfied with a SHOULD. But to go in Sams' direction, I can imagine additional phrasing that would make a difference
- 14:56:49 [weiler]
- [also need to take it out in the previous section re: worldwide, but same idea]
- 14:57:09 [fantasai]
- florian: We could say things like, "however, access to electricity may be assumed"
- 14:57:17 [fantasai]
- florian: can't require participation by snail mail
- 14:57:29 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:57:46 [fantasai]
- florian: Need to have general means of electronic communications available
- 14:57:46 [dsinger]
- ack jef
- 14:57:52 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Might just be able to delete words though
- 14:58:03 [fantasai]
- jeff: I want to know Sa's reaction to dsinger's proposal
- 14:58:17 [fantasai]
- weiler: I'm fine with it
- 14:58:32 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I can live with it
- 14:58:40 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:58:49 [wseltzer]
- +1
- 14:59:02 [fantasai]
- dsinger: OK, we'll just stop the sentence early
- 14:59:12 [dsinger]
- q?
- 14:59:14 [fantasai]
- florian: I'll just do it
- 14:59:26 [fantasai]
- weiler: There's multiple places
- 14:59:35 [fantasai]
- weiler: There's a reference to worldwide in the other section
- 14:59:58 [fantasai]
- weiler: in item 2
- 15:00:39 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I'm OK with dropping from item 2
- 15:00:51 [fantasai]
- jeff: can we just say for all?
- 15:01:12 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Maybe replace "worldwide" with "internationalization"
- 15:01:25 [fantasai]
- florian: We're just saying "follow best practices", why is this a problem?
- 15:02:34 [fantasai]
- [debate over where we're editing]
- 15:02:58 [dsinger]
- q?
- 15:03:10 [fantasai]
- weiler: Replace with "internationalization"
- 15:03:14 [fantasai]
- dsinger: OK
- 15:04:01 [dsinger]
- q?
- 15:04:16 [fantasai]
- fantasai: I have concerns actually with the earlier edit, I think it makes the sentence unclear, but I suggest we merge in and ask the AB about it
- 15:04:48 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Merge PR with the edits above: end item 4 before "regardless" and switch "accessibility worldwide" to "internationalization and accessibility"
- 15:04:57 [fantasai]
- Topic: Where are we
- 15:05:06 [fantasai]
- florian: I think we're at the point where we check over the text
- 15:05:25 [fantasai]
- dsinger: When you're done updating the text, please post a message about that
- 15:05:46 [fantasai]
- dsinger: restructuring of document
- 15:06:12 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Defining constitutents, define groups (e.g. AB/TAG), define publications, miscellaneous
- 15:06:21 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Trying to take seriously concern about document bieng hard to read
- 15:06:32 [fantasai]
- dsinger: would like intro to give us a roadmap of the document also
- 15:06:45 [fantasai]
- jeff: also +1 to what florian said about really getting a look at the wholistic document
- 15:07:07 [fantasai]
- jeff: I understand in bits and pieces, we review as a series of PR
- 15:07:16 [fantasai]
- jeff: so would like an opportunity to see the changes in totality
- 15:07:24 [fantasai]
- jeff: and say, great, those individual things we did realy do hang together!
- 15:07:42 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Yes, Florian has action item to prepare document and an explanation of what's been done
- 15:07:57 [fantasai]
- florian: Yes, I'll prepare, and we'll all take opporunity to do a holistic review
- 15:08:01 [fantasai]
- s/wholistic/holistic/
- 15:08:07 [fantasai]
- florian: I'll also make a changelog
- 15:08:14 [fantasai]
- plh: Cleaning up wrt AC review comments?
- 15:08:22 [fantasai]
- florian: We have addressed some of them, but haven't prioritized all to to the topi
- 15:08:28 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Yes, pls look at them
- 15:08:34 [fantasai]
- dsinger: OK, seriously over time
- 15:08:46 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Next meeting, suggest we cancel
- 15:09:12 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Next meeting cancelled
- 15:09:27 [fantasai]
- dsinger: Please use spare time to look at ??, things we tagged and prioritzed for 2021, and AC comments from last time
- 15:09:37 [fantasai]
- dsinger: with that, let's adjourn
- 15:09:42 [fantasai]
- Meeting adjourned.
- 15:09:42 [dsinger]
- q?
- 16:35:04 [tantek]
- tantek has joined #w3process
- 17:32:50 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #w3process
- 18:51:30 [plh]
- rrsagent, generate minutes v2
- 18:51:30 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-w3process-minutes.html plh