14:57:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:57:32 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/10-w3process-irc
14:57:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:57:36 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:58:46 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
14:58:52 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
14:59:21 <dsinger> zakim, start meeting
14:59:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:59:22 <Zakim> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
14:59:34 <dsinger> present+ dsinger
15:00:53 <wseltzer> present+
15:01:16 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
15:01:21 <plh> present+
15:01:29 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
15:01:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/10-w3process-minutes.html plh
15:02:57 <weiler> present+
15:03:04 <cwilso> present+
15:03:33 <jeff> present+
15:04:12 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #w3process
15:04:16 <jrosewell> present+
15:04:39 <jeff> scribe+
15:04:43 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Nov 10th event at https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/89dd2215-93d3-4af8-971c-931529bc227d/20211110T070000#general -- Agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2021Nov/0002.html
15:05:00 <jeff> David: Topic agenda bashing
15:05:24 <jeff> David: I see no requests
15:05:37 <jeff> Topic: Triage meeting with James
15:05:45 <jrosewell> Thank you
15:05:47 <jeff> David: Florian, James, and I had a very productive meeting
15:05:58 <jeff> ... moving a bunch of issues around
15:06:02 <jeff> ... PLH can you help?
15:06:10 <jeff> PLH: I did not see the email, but I can help
15:06:19 <jeff> David: I will refine the email.
15:06:51 <jeff> Topic: Process 2022
15:07:03 <jeff> David: Need to make progress on substance
15:07:12 <jeff> Subtopic: Director-free pulls
15:07:22 <jeff> Florian: I don't know if they are easy or hard
15:07:28 <jeff> ... textually rather small
15:07:43 <dsinger> (Pull requests #585 and #586)
15:07:50 <jeff> ... acknowledging that the Team is doing what the Director is assigned to do
15:08:02 <jeff> ... maybe it should be different, but this is how it is happening.
15:08:13 <jeff> ... for #586, it is fine that the team does it.
15:08:17 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/586
15:08:24 <jeff> ... transition requests along TR
15:08:34 <jeff> ... criteria are vague, but the team cannot go wrong alone.
15:08:40 <jeff> ... members need to request something
15:08:45 <jeff> ... team cannot go rogue
15:08:59 <jrosewell> q+
15:09:04 <jeff> ... if team is inappropriate, the team issues a decision which can be formally objected to
15:09:07 <jrosewell> difference between judge and following rules
15:09:14 <jeff> ... criteria are vague
15:09:24 <jeff> ... but there is recourse
15:09:38 <jeff> ... to make criteria less vague is a good topic, but it can be a separate topic.
15:09:43 <dsinger> q+ to ask about the first set
15:09:47 <dsinger> ack jr
15:10:00 <jeff> James: Not sure what these areas are
15:10:06 <jeff> ... for administrative matter it is OK
15:10:16 <jeff> Florian: In this case, some judgment is required
15:10:37 <jeff> ... the Director (or Team) must decide if sufficient implementation experience exists
15:10:49 <jeff> ... the team could misjudge because no agreement on what the terms mean
15:10:56 <jeff> ... but the team cannot move forward
15:11:09 <jeff> ... if the team makes a mistake, that decision can be appealed.
15:11:27 <jeff> ... until we improve the criteria the team can do it
15:11:39 <jeff> James: Take DIDs for example
15:11:44 <jeff> ... a great deal of discussion
15:11:52 <jeff> ... wide set of opinions
15:11:59 <jeff> ... don't know if it is relevant
15:12:10 <cwilso> q+ to ask about "Team" mechanics
15:12:16 <jeff> ... only the highest level of judgment can be made about its suitability
15:12:38 <jeff> Florian: In this case, the team made the judgment and then we go into debate and escalations
15:12:52 <jeff> ... all we are changing is to say it is the Team; not the Director
15:13:00 <jeff> James: Is the team comfortable with this?
15:13:06 <jeff> q+ to address James' question
15:13:27 <jeff> ... would like to hear from Wendy or Jeff
15:13:44 <jeff> David: We should focus on normative changes
15:13:50 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:13:50 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address James' question
15:13:59 <cwilso> scribe+
15:14:18 <cwilso> jeff:  the way it works today, the authority sits with the Director, who has delegated to the Team
15:14:29 <cwilso> ...the Director is still available to consult, which does happen
15:15:10 <cwilso> ...I've never heard the Team being uncomfortable with this task; even if were to formally move to the Team, I suspect they could still consult the Director
15:15:16 <cwilso> ...if that would help streamline the process.
15:15:18 <dsinger> ack cwil
15:15:18 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to ask about "Team" mechanics
15:15:32 <jeff> Chris: My only concern is that it is not clear what Team approval means.
15:15:39 <jeff> ... the team is a large team.
15:15:44 <florian> q+ to respond to chris
15:15:58 <jeff> ... is this a guantlet that needs to be run.
15:16:06 <jeff> q+ to comment on Chris' question
15:16:13 <dsinger> ack flo
15:16:13 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to chris
15:16:23 <jeff> Florian: We have tackled that question in the process
15:16:29 <jeff> ... we define a Team Decision
15:16:35 <cwilso> s/guantlet/gauntlet
15:16:46 <jeff> ... they derive from Director and CEO authority even when carried out by other members of the Team
15:16:59 <jeff> ... does not need to be done by a single person or 15 people
15:17:03 <jeff> ... up to the CEO
15:17:11 <jeff> ... roughly CEO decision = Team decision
15:17:17 <jeff> ... but matter of emphasis
15:17:29 <jeff> ... discipline is called out as CEO since it needs to be CEO
15:17:38 <dsinger> q?
15:17:41 <jeff> ... matters that are for the team at large are highlighted as team decisions
15:17:43 <dsinger> ack dsi
15:17:43 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about the first set
15:17:59 <jeff> David: Looking at who "considers"
15:18:11 <cwilso> q+ to say CEO != Team
15:18:21 <jeff> ... but to "advance" you MUST obtain team approval
15:18:42 <jeff> ... similar other cases for exceptions
15:19:01 <jeff> q+ to comment on P2022 v future processes
15:19:15 <jeff> Florian: These are decisions which could be objected to
15:19:33 <jeff> David: I get slightly uncomfortable about Team approval
15:20:00 <jeff> Florian: Would you be more comfortable if we made it explicit that you can formally object to it
15:20:08 <jeff> David: 99% of the time it is routine
15:20:15 <jeff> ... and the team is right
15:20:24 <jeff> ... I am anxious about the controversial cases
15:20:31 <jeff> ... make it clear that there is recourse
15:20:38 <jeff> Florian: A clarification would be nice
15:20:48 <jeff> ... but the process says Decisions can be objected to
15:21:03 <dsinger> q?
15:21:03 <jeff> ... if we start singling them out, what are we saying about other decisions?
15:21:04 <plh> q+
15:21:06 <jrosewell> q+
15:21:08 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:21:08 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on Chris' question and to comment on P2022 v future processes
15:21:09 <jeff> David: Just an anxiety
15:21:21 <cwilso> scribe+
15:21:38 <cwilso> jeff: two comments: ? was asked, how are transitions handled today
15:22:01 <cwilso> ...as a practical matter, handling the transitions is almost entirely in the hands of Ralph
15:22:05 <TallTed> this bit of anxiety is a natural hazard of trimming redundant phrases wherever possible (e.g., not stating on *every* decision that it may be appealed, but saying once that all decisions may be appealed)
15:22:29 <cwilso> ...he consults with other Team members, most often PLH... in complex cases, he relies on others in the management team.
15:22:35 <cwilso> ...he may consult with Tim as well.
15:23:28 <cwilso> ...I also wanted to address David's well-anchored anxiety about the decision power resting in the Team.
15:23:52 <cwilso> ...but I think we're trying to take the least controversial things and make them reflect reality.
15:24:28 <cwilso> ...I would encourage we keep open an existing issue in any case.
15:24:39 <dsinger> q?
15:24:40 <cwilso> ...we should continue to have this on our radar screen.
15:24:42 <jeff> David: OK
15:24:43 <dsinger> ack cwilso
15:24:43 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say CEO != Team
15:25:03 <jeff> Chris: Much of my concern is having been through many processes for feature approval
15:25:08 <jeff> ... day job in Chrome
15:25:19 <jeff> ... obtaining approval cannot be objected to if you don't get it
15:25:31 <florian> q+
15:25:33 <jeff> ... as a WG Chair, how do I obtain team approval?
15:25:43 <jeff> ... team contact?  PLH?  Ralph?  Wendy?
15:25:48 <jeff> ... can any of them object?
15:25:53 <jeff> How do I do this from a WG.
15:26:27 <jeff> ... seems more nebulous with this change
15:26:38 <dsinger> ack plh
15:26:43 <jeff> David: What state am I in if I have not gotten approval yet?
15:26:48 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/new/choose
15:26:54 <jeff> q+ to comment that the nebulous state already exists
15:27:05 <jeff> PLH: Approvals are recorded in a GH repository
15:27:12 <dsinger> what state am I in if neither approval nor disapproval have been received? what do I do?
15:27:25 <wseltzer> q+ re timeout
15:27:33 <jeff> ... that should handle approvals for our three tracks
15:27:34 <wseltzer> q-
15:27:51 <jeff> ... to complicate a bit, I will change the workmode of repository
15:28:06 <jeff> ... before for "Director" approval; now for "Team" approval
15:28:22 <jeff> ... sometimes the groups don't make a request
15:28:30 <dsinger> q?
15:28:30 <jeff> ... but the team checks compliance and we are done
15:28:45 <jeff> ... yesterday I need to pushback because some changes were substantive
15:28:55 <jeff> ... went beyond normal pubrules
15:29:02 <jeff> ... but didn't need team approval
15:29:05 <jeff> ... something in between
15:29:15 <jeff> ... if there are disagreements, need to be escalated to the council
15:29:24 <dsinger> q?
15:29:31 <dsinger> ack jrose
15:29:40 <jeff> David: I would like to move on soon to shape the questions
15:30:00 <jeff> James: Issues are about accountability, responsibility, need to be informed
15:30:05 <jeff> ... today delegated authority
15:30:10 <jeff> ... administrative rules
15:30:14 <jeff> ... judgment
15:30:22 <jeff> ... we will see similar points in other areas of the document
15:30:37 <jeff> ... are we better served by replacing sentences or looking at it holistically
15:30:44 <jeff> ... may yield better result
15:30:48 <jeff> ... that's my preference
15:30:56 <jeff> ack je\
15:31:01 <jeff> ack je
15:31:01 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment that the nebulous state already exists
15:31:02 <dsinger> ack jef
15:31:03 <weiler> scribe+
15:31:32 <weiler> jeff: I understand concerns re: wanting approval and it doesn't come, so outcome is nebulous.  fair concerns.
15:31:52 <weiler> ... To the extent they're fair, they're also in P2021 - they're not new in what we're looking at today.
15:32:24 <weiler> ... We should discuss improvements there, but not fixing existing problem shouldn't block this.
15:32:24 <jeff> David: Florian, please wrap this up
15:32:28 <weiler> scribe-
15:32:33 <jeff> Florian: Either we have consensus and merge it now
15:32:43 <jeff> ... or assign me to go back to tweak and make clearer
15:32:53 <jeff> ... possibly introducing time outs
15:33:08 <jeff> ... I lean towards - these are good questions, but separate questions
15:33:23 <jeff> David: Let's move to #585
15:33:27 <jeff> ... team decision
15:33:30 <jeff> ... premature closing
15:33:42 <jeff> Florian: This one is similar in shape but possibly more concerning
15:33:51 <jeff> ... deals with group creation and closure
15:34:04 <jeff> ... for creation, does not tell us how we get to a proposed charter
15:34:17 <jeff> ... it starts with the proposed charter and the Director is then looking at it
15:34:26 <jeff> ... for that part, it is similar to #586
15:34:36 <jeff> ... on forceful closure of group
15:34:48 <jeff> ... we are moving it from Director to team
15:35:00 <jeff> ... perhaps not make the naive substitution
15:35:08 <jeff> ... might want to spend time thinking.
15:35:26 <dsinger> q?
15:35:27 <jeff> David: Seems worthy of more thought
15:35:33 <jeff> q+
15:35:45 <jeff> ... it would be nice to work through some examples
15:35:48 <wseltzer> q+
15:35:53 <wseltzer> q+ to say "patents"
15:36:01 <jeff> ... prematurely closing in a controversial way
15:36:15 <jeff> Florian: In this case, there are different routes for appeal
15:36:22 <jeff> ... that is explicitly mentioned
15:36:22 <dsinger> ack flo
15:36:28 <dsinger> ack jeff
15:37:40 <dsinger> ack ws
15:37:40 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to say "patents"
15:37:40 <jeff> David: We have a target of Director-free
15:37:47 <jeff> ... trying to remove all mentions
15:38:19 <jeff> Wendy: For forcible stoppage of work, a irresolvable patent assertion could be a reason.
15:38:21 <jeff> q+
15:38:37 <jeff> Florian: "A" way or "The" way
15:38:39 <dsinger> q+ to wrap up
15:38:44 <dsinger> ack jef
15:38:51 <jeff> Wendy: I can imagine the membership wanting to close in such a case
15:39:41 <wseltzer> wseltzer: I could envision a distinct case in which the Membership determines there's no way a group can be successful, and asks the team to force the group to stop
15:39:44 <dsinger> q?
15:39:53 <dsinger> ack ds
15:39:53 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to wrap up
15:40:00 <jeff> Jeff: But Wendy's case is covered by the patent policy
15:40:16 <wseltzer> [^ wendy's first case]
15:40:20 <jeff> David: Chris, we should inform the AB of the discussion
15:40:43 <jeff> ... there could be two cases - whether the group agrees or not
15:40:45 <jeff> q+
15:40:55 <jeff> ... these two are illuminating
15:41:06 <jeff> ... we can use as paradigmatic examples
15:41:13 <jeff> ... can we leave them as open PRs?
15:41:17 <jeff> Florian: Sure.
15:41:20 <dsinger> ack jef
15:42:32 <jeff> Jeff: As a practical matter, when a groups wants to keep going, we let them finish the charter, but may not recharter
15:42:41 <jeff> David: So let's leave it open for now
15:42:51 <jeff> Florian: But not for too long since there is a lot to do
15:43:01 <jeff> David: I will not hold forever if it is mere anxiety
15:43:08 <jeff> ... we need specific improvements
15:43:12 <jeff> Florian: SGTM
15:43:20 <jeff> Subtopic: Recusal
15:43:47 <dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/278#issuecomment-964403752
15:43:50 <jeff> David: How do we deal with people being on the council which may seem to be inappropriate
15:43:51 <jeff> q+
15:44:00 <jeff> ... I'd like to hear discussion
15:44:02 <florian> q+
15:44:05 <dsinger> ack jef
15:44:06 <jeff> ... we need to move ahead
15:44:35 <wseltzer> scribe+
15:44:51 <wseltzer> jeff: I've supported David's consolidation of ideas
15:45:13 <wseltzer> ... propose that we use this process in incubating decision-process
15:45:17 <florian> q+
15:45:20 <wseltzer> ... not yet as decided process text
15:45:29 <wseltzer> ... if it works well, great, we can put it into Process
15:45:41 <wseltzer> ... leave it open for experimental trial
15:45:41 <dsinger> ack flo
15:45:47 <jeff> David: I don't expect to close the topic after this even if everyone agrees
15:45:54 <jeff> Florian: Agree with Jeff with a nuance
15:46:10 <jrosewell> q+
15:46:16 <jeff> ... the DF branch should include this if this is where we are for now
15:46:30 <jeff> ... the fact that Manu has supported it is noteworthy
15:46:44 <dsinger> q?
15:46:46 <jeff> ... since he had concerns about DID recusals
15:46:47 <dsinger> ack jr
15:46:58 <jeff> James: Just scanning this
15:47:24 <jeff> ... first comment: "no one is required to recuse"
15:47:35 <jeff> ... usually there are clear requirements to recuse themselves
15:47:48 <jeff> ... that is quite concerning to me that we have no rules at all that require recusal
15:48:02 <jeff> David: I would be happy for people to try
15:48:15 <jeff> Florian: What we are trying to design is not a justice for objective truth
15:48:20 <cwilso> +1 to Florian
15:48:25 <jeff> ... if you were, you can be aggressive with recusal rules
15:48:33 <jeff> ... we want broad agreement from the community
15:48:37 <jeff> q+
15:48:44 <dsinger> q?
15:48:49 <jeff> ... there may be points where we are too tainted
15:49:04 <jeff> ... you also might have missed that there is forceful recusal
15:49:16 <jeff> ... it is made by group decision
15:49:32 <jeff> David: I encourage you (James) to read all of the comments in the issues
15:49:54 <jeff> James: Does the Council decide by unanimous vote
15:50:04 <cwilso> q+
15:50:14 <jeff> David: We want unanimity; but don't want to leave without decisions
15:50:25 <jeff> James: I'm familiar with majority rules
15:50:35 <jeff> ... COI can usually be identified for common cases
15:50:41 <jeff> ... such as financial interest
15:50:54 <jeff> Florian: We all have financial interests
15:51:03 <dsinger> ack jef
15:51:15 <wseltzer> scribe+
15:51:22 <wseltzer> jeff: please add further to the thread
15:51:38 <wseltzer> ... I find myself agreeing with both Florian and James
15:52:05 <dsinger> q+ to propose the word "dismiss" for what the Council does when it votes
15:52:22 <wseltzer> ... from lengthy discussion, understand why it's hard to identify MUSTs
15:52:39 <wseltzer> ... even as I recognize those exist in many other circumstances
15:53:04 <wseltzer> ... I'm reluctant to fix the text even in a branch before testing
15:53:19 <florian> q+
15:53:21 <wseltzer> ... if we test with a few councils, and the community sees it works, then gives useful experience
15:53:30 <dsinger> ack cwli
15:53:31 <wseltzer> dsinger: agree we're in try-and-see mode
15:53:36 <dsinger> ack cwi
15:53:36 <jeff> David: We will wrap up soon.
15:53:42 <jeff> Chris: We had a good thread
15:53:48 <jeff> ... beginning to land on some specifics
15:53:59 <jeff> ... just saw Manu's last comment
15:54:16 <jeff> ... strict recusal rules with anyone with an interest would obviate half the council
15:54:23 <jeff> ... we are not looking for that
15:54:33 <jeff> ... we are looking for gross COIs
15:54:39 <jrosewell> q+
15:54:40 <jeff> ... the system will address that
15:55:01 <jeff> ... the mechanics are different because it was a large council
15:55:06 <jeff> ... lots of voices in the room
15:55:16 <jeff> ... worked towards a consensus in line with W3C culture
15:55:17 <dsinger> zakim, close the queue
15:55:17 <Zakim> ok, dsinger, the speaker queue is closed
15:55:25 <jeff> ... don't know if it is perfect yet
15:55:32 <jeff> ... difficult cases on the table.
15:55:33 <dsinger> ack jr
15:55:49 <jeff> James: I would like to challenge assertion from Chris
15:56:01 <weiler> q+
15:56:04 <jeff> ... there could be times when no user agent vendor should be on the council
15:56:09 <jeff> ... can't take that as a given
15:56:17 <jeff> ... Council may be set up for different purposes
15:56:28 <jeff> ... could be a technical spec v could be about policy
15:56:35 <dsinger> q?
15:56:38 <dsinger> ack flo
15:56:54 <jeff> Florian: In terms of including in DF branch
15:57:07 <jeff> ... I am uncomfortable that the DF branch has something different
15:57:25 <jeff> ... can include this in DF branch with a wording that it is experimental
15:57:34 <jeff> [Florian, WFM, thanks.]
15:57:46 <jeff> David: I suggest "recuse" means they recuse themselves
15:57:53 <jeff> ... dismiss if it is a Council decision
15:58:05 <cwilso> I would like to understand what kind of cases would mean "all UA vendors should be dismissed"
15:58:10 <jeff> ... need to decide on reporting - does membership see reasons and vote totals?
15:58:26 <jeff> ... I will work with Florian to write this up as a PR on DF branch with a warning.
15:58:35 <jeff> ... agreeable?
15:58:43 <cwilso> +1
15:58:49 <jeff> <jeff> +1 to David's proposal
15:58:54 <florian> +1
15:59:04 <jeff> David: If you have issues with that, please put that into the issue.
15:59:10 <wseltzer> +1
15:59:23 <jeff> Subtopic: Other issues
15:59:34 <jeff> David: Please start attacking 35 other open issues
15:59:40 <jeff> Topic: New issues
15:59:45 <jeff> David: Please take a look
15:59:55 <jeff> ... I will work with Florian and Elika
16:00:06 <jeff> Topic: Next meeting
16:00:11 <jeff> David: 8 December
16:00:29 <jeff> Topic: AoB
16:00:35 <jeff> David: Congrats on P2021
16:00:36 <dsinger> q?
16:00:40 <dsinger> ack ds
16:00:41 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to propose the word "dismiss" for what the Council does when it votes
16:00:45 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/10-w3process-minutes.html jeff
16:00:59 <jeff> [adjourned]
18:01:34 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
18:20:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process