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