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