IRC log of w3process on 2022-06-22
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:02:03 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #w3process
- 14:02:05 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/22-w3process-irc
- 14:02:05 [weiler]
- present=
- 14:02:13 [weiler]
- present+
- 14:02:17 [weiler]
- present+ fantasai
- 14:02:29 [weiler]
- present+ wseltzer
- 14:02:35 [weiler]
- present+ plh
- 14:02:37 [weiler]
- present+ florian
- 14:02:50 [plh]
- plh has joined #w3process
- 14:02:58 [plh]
- agenda+ Issues up for closure
- 14:02:58 [plh]
- agenda+ Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process
- 14:02:58 [plh]
- agenda+ Director-Free: Recusal from W3C Council
- 14:02:58 [plh]
- agenda+ Let the Team rather than the Director handle progression on TR
- 14:02:59 [plh]
- agenda+ Maturity Level is a weird term
- 14:02:59 [plh]
- agenda+ TAG Appointment: Review the proposal before sending it to the AB
- 14:03:00 [plh]
- agenda+ Process 2022 issues
- 14:03:02 [plh]
- plh has changed the topic to: Next Process CG: June 22
- 14:03:19 [plh]
- zakim, clear agenda
- 14:03:20 [Zakim]
- agenda cleared
- 14:03:26 [plh]
- agenda+ Issues up for closure
- 14:03:26 [plh]
- agenda+ Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process
- 14:03:26 [plh]
- agenda+ Director-Free: Recusal from W3C Council
- 14:03:26 [plh]
- agenda+ Let the Team rather than the Director handle progression on TR
- 14:03:27 [plh]
- agenda+ Maturity Level is a weird term
- 14:03:27 [plh]
- agenda+ TAG Appointment: Review the proposal before sending it to the AB
- 14:03:28 [plh]
- agenda+ Process 2022 issues
- 14:03:32 [fantasai]
- ScribeNick: fantasai
- 14:03:41 [plh]
- Regrets+ DavidS
- 14:03:49 [plh]
- regrets+ ChrisW
- 14:04:07 [weiler]
- present+ jeff
- 14:04:28 [fantasai]
- plh: Process is going to mainly manufactured by the Team, given attendance today.
- 14:04:32 [fantasai]
- Topic: Issue to close
- 14:04:40 [fantasai]
- plh: Two issues candidate to close
- 14:04:41 [wseltzer_bot]
- +1 to close
- 14:04:58 [fantasai]
- s/Issue to close/Review of Agenda/
- 14:05:04 [fantasai]
- plh: recusal from council
- 14:05:18 [fantasai]
- plh: pull request from Florian on Director-free
- 14:05:26 [fantasai]
- plh: issue from fantasai about "Maturity Level"
- 14:05:29 [Ralph]
- Ralph has joined #w3process
- 14:05:34 [fantasai]
- plh: and TAG appointments, to review where we are on the issue
- 14:05:35 [Ralph]
- present+
- 14:05:41 [fantasai]
- plh: If we have time, we can do any other 2022 issue
- 14:05:46 [fantasai]
- plh: Should we dive in?
- 14:05:49 [fantasai]
- florian: Dive!
- 14:05:52 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:05:52 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- Issues up for closure -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:06:00 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/443
- 14:06:03 [fantasai]
- Topic: Issues for Closure
- 14:06:05 [fantasai]
- Subtopic: Stronger emphasis on reaching Recommendation
- 14:06:16 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/443
- 14:06:36 [fantasai]
- plh: Any objections to close this issue? We have an open PR on the Guide, and no proposals for altering the Process
- 14:06:39 [fantasai]
- florian: Close it
- 14:06:46 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Close #443
- 14:06:57 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/462
- 14:07:10 [fantasai]
- Subtopic: Process should requre CR transition to document plan for CR exit
- 14:07:19 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/462
- 14:07:24 [fantasai]
- weiler: [describes issue]
- 14:07:28 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:07:28 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:07:31 [fantasai]
- various: let's close
- 14:07:38 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Close #462
- 14:07:39 [wseltzer]
- +1 to close without change
- 14:07:45 [fantasai]
- Topic: CG and BG processes into Process
- 14:07:53 [fantasai]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/409
- 14:08:00 [fantasai]
- plh: I fear we have other priorities
- 14:08:11 [fantasai]
- plh: Are we OK to defer this yet again?
- 14:08:47 [weiler]
- fantasai: this is a big topic; I'm not sure what's being proposed is the way forward
- 14:08:58 [fantasai]
- plh: Doubt more important than DF
- 14:09:04 [fantasai]
- plh: Proposal is to defer yet again
- 14:09:06 [fantasai]
- florian: Yes, defer
- 14:09:17 [fantasai]
- florian: They are *mentioned* in the Process, but defined elsewhere
- 14:09:20 [jeff__]
- q+
- 14:09:49 [fantasai]
- jeff__: Small thing related to this context, have we made adequately clear that CEPC applies to CGs and BGs?
- 14:09:58 [fantasai]
- wseltzer: Yes, it is in the Join to those groups
- 14:10:03 [weiler]
- q+
- 14:10:05 [fantasai]
- jeff__: To me that's the most important linkage that we might have
- 14:10:08 [plh]
- ack jeff
- 14:10:17 [fantasai]
- weiler: Rather than merely defer, how are we going ot get communities to tackle this?
- 14:10:18 [tzviya]
- tzviya has joined #w3process
- 14:10:20 [fantasai]
- weiler: It's bigger than us
- 14:10:26 [plh]
- ack weiler
- 14:10:26 [fantasai]
- weiler: How do we get tackle
- 14:10:38 [fantasai]
- florian: I don't even know what we're trying to achieve, and we have other things we do want to achieve
- 14:10:46 [fantasai]
- florian: if can wrap it up in 5min... otherwise defer
- 14:10:57 [fantasai]
- weiler: not defer for us to do later, but kick it to some other part of community
- 14:11:09 [fantasai]
- plh: We are the community. We're the CG for the Process
- 14:11:14 [wseltzer]
- [Unless someone who proposes an alternative comes forward, I think we drop it.]
- 14:11:16 [fantasai]
- plh: If someone wants to work on this, not going to object for sure
- 14:11:22 [fantasai]
- plh: do we need to actively assign the work?
- 14:11:28 [fantasai]
- plh: is deferred, not closed
- 14:11:38 [fantasai]
- plh: I just want to send a clear signal that we don't have resources right now to take care of it
- 14:12:10 [Ralph]
- scribe+
- 14:12:23 [florian]
- fantasai: much of why CG's need more process is because they're trying to do things that should be done in WGs
- 14:12:30 [Ralph]
- scribe-
- 14:12:36 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:12:36 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- Director-Free: Recusal from W3C Council -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:12:39 [florian]
- fantasai: so we should rather look into why they're doing that and fix that problem isntead
- 14:12:48 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Defer this cycle
- 14:12:50 [jeff__]
- q+
- 14:12:52 [fantasai]
- Topic: Recusal
- 14:12:56 [florian]
- q+
- 14:13:01 [fantasai]
- plh: We have some stuff in Process, do we need to put more?
- 14:13:11 [fantasai]
- plh: We can always put stuff in the Guide, which is easier to change
- 14:13:17 [Ralph]
- ["recusal" is not the currently preferred term]
- 14:13:18 [fantasai]
- plh: Harder to enforce, though, because not part of process
- 14:13:30 [plh]
- ack jeff
- 14:13:43 [jeff__]
- qq+
- 14:13:52 [fantasai]
- plh: Question is, do we have enough in the Process for this today?
- 14:13:59 [fantasai]
- plh: Last time I checked it doesn't reflect what we're actually doing
- 14:14:08 [fantasai]
- plh: Either need to change experiment or process
- 14:14:10 [plh]
- ack jeff
- 14:14:10 [Zakim]
- jeff__, you wanted to react to jeff__
- 14:14:15 [Ralph]
- -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/director-free/#council "5.7.2. The W3C Council" Director-free draft
- 14:14:34 [fantasai]
- jeff__: In my mind, recusal is not unrelated to dismissal, and dissatisfied that dismissal is working as we need it to
- 14:14:43 [fantasai]
- jeff__: Too early to come to a conclusion, need to keep experimenting
- 14:14:50 [fantasai]
- jeff__: basis for my dissatisfaction is twofold
- 14:15:12 [fantasai]
- jeff__: First of all, we've had successful Councils formed where potentia beneficiaries of the decisions have not been dismissed
- 14:15:13 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, please make record public
- 14:15:15 [wseltzer]
- q+
- 14:15:51 [wseltzer]
- q-
- 14:16:14 [wseltzer]
- s/jeff__: First of all, we've had successful Councils formed where potentia beneficiaries of the decisions have not been dismissed//
- 14:16:29 [wseltzer]
- rrsagent, please make record member until cleaned up
- 14:16:29 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make record member until cleaned up', wseltzer. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 14:16:58 [fantasai]
- s/basis for my dissatisfaction is twofold/I think we need a post-mortem for the experiments/
- 14:17:19 [wseltzer]
- s/rrsagent, please make record member until cleaned up//
- 14:17:39 [plh]
- ack florian
- 14:17:51 [fantasai]
- florian: I thin what's in process is neither too much nor enough, it's outdated
- 14:18:03 [fantasai]
- florian: I think we action me to update
- 14:18:13 [fantasai]
- florian: and we can point at whereever we're maintaining the dismissal thing or whatever
- 14:18:29 [jeff__]
- q+ to florian
- 14:18:32 [fantasai]
- florian: eventually the Process should be updated with it, but for now let's just stick an issue in the Process to mark as Work in Progress
- 14:18:34 [jeff__]
- +1 to florian
- 14:18:34 [plh]
- ack jeff
- 14:18:34 [Zakim]
- jeff__, you wanted to florian
- 14:18:36 [jeff__]
- q-
- 14:18:38 [plh]
- q+
- 14:18:41 [plh]
- ack plh
- 14:18:53 [fantasai]
- plh: Fine with putting an issue and deferring conversation
- 14:19:17 [fantasai]
- plh: 2 questions, if we defer, should be deferring after TPAC. But that might push us later into 2023
- 14:19:23 [fantasai]
- florian: I think this is up to AB
- 14:19:34 [fantasai]
- florian: They need to say what rules we adopt
- 14:19:52 [fantasai]
- plh: Was going to ask if we're right group to discuss these things
- 14:20:04 [fantasai]
- florian: We're the right group to draft text, but the AB needs to say what to draft
- 14:20:26 [fantasai]
- plh: The AB is super busy...
- 14:20:40 [fantasai]
- florian: I'm in both groups, and we have quite a few members here who are regulars of the AB
- 14:20:46 [jeff__]
- q+
- 14:20:51 [fantasai]
- florian: I don't feel this group is the right group to draw conclusions from the experiments
- 14:20:52 [plh]
- ack jeff
- 14:21:08 [fantasai]
- jeff__: I think that for the entire Process, it's managed by the AB, and they delegate a lot of the work to us
- 14:21:18 [fantasai]
- jeff__: if they want to weigh in they can
- 14:21:23 [fantasai]
- jeff__: We work with the best information we have
- 14:21:38 [fantasai]
- plh: Any objection to defer until after TPAC this conversation, to allow experiments to proceed/
- 14:21:50 [fantasai]
- [discussion of timing]
- 14:22:06 [fantasai]
- plh: if AB doesn't get back to us by TPAC, we should try to make progress ourselves
- 14:22:27 [fantasai]
- florian: Meanwhile, action me to add an issue to Process
- 14:22:36 [fantasai]
- ACTION Florian: Add issue in Process about recusal/dismissal
- 14:23:37 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:23:37 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- Let the Team rather than the Director handle progression on TR -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:23:43 [fantasai]
- plh: good at deferring things today...
- 14:23:52 [fantasai]
- Topic: Let the Team handle progression on TR
- 14:23:57 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/586
- 14:24:00 [fantasai]
- florian: fantasai and I looked at this
- 14:24:07 [plh]
- Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/586
- 14:24:20 [fantasai]
- florian: There was request from Léonie that when Team moves things forward with weak justifications, Team needs to document it
- 14:24:23 [fantasai]
- florian: this was already in the text
- 14:24:47 [fantasai]
- florian: Also comment from dsinger wrt Team approving advancement on the REC track, not clearly tied to criteria in Process
- 14:24:58 [fantasai]
- florian: Director could block for any reason, not just procedural
- 14:25:17 [fantasai]
- florian: which wouldn't be fine in case of Team, so dsinger requested clarification that the Team is expected to assess the quality of the spec
- 14:25:23 [fantasai]
- florian: and not based on personal opinions
- 14:25:35 [fantasai]
- florian: so text has been updated to tie their approval to such requirements
- 14:25:43 [fantasai]
- florian: to avoid making it seem the Team can block based on their own feeling
- 14:26:13 [fantasai]
- florian: There was also something we noticed: a sentence saying that the Director (now Team) had the ability, without WG's approval, to take a REC-track document and move it down, e.g. CR to WD
- 14:26:27 [fantasai]
- florian: There is the ability to forcefully do this, and while unlikely to abused, felt more comfortable under just the Director than just the Team
- 14:26:38 [fantasai]
- florian: so we added the fact that if the Team wants to do this, it needs the approval of the AB and TAG
- 14:26:46 [fantasai]
- florian: so that's a new idea for your consideration
- 14:27:03 [fantasai]
- florian: I think if we need ability to forcefully downgrade a document, should get some approval
- 14:27:13 [fantasai]
- plh: We can review at the next meeting
- 14:27:17 [fantasai]
- plh: Any questions about this?
- 14:27:54 [weiler]
- scribe+
- 14:27:57 [fantasai]
- fantasai: Just recommend to review the PR commit by commit, because we both changed and moved some text, easier to review move and changes separately
- 14:28:19 [fantasai]
- plh: Encourage Ralph to look at this, since the Team is functionally Ralph in a lot of those cases
- 14:28:43 [fantasai]
- florian: PR isn't intended to change anything that we're actually doing, should be compatible with existing practice
- 14:28:57 [fantasai]
- weiler: ?? question in that thread, Team's decision are objectable?
- 14:29:00 [fantasai]
- florian: yes
- 14:29:05 [fantasai]
- weiler: what about Director decision?
- 14:29:12 [fantasai]
- florian: Decisions -- all decisions -- are objectable
- 14:29:27 [fantasai]
- plh: New process clarifies that
- 14:30:02 [fantasai]
- florian: So goal is to land it next time?
- 14:30:03 [fantasai]
- plh: yep
- 14:30:07 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:30:07 [Zakim]
- agendum 5 -- Maturity Level is a weird term -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:30:13 [fantasai]
- Topic: Maturity Level is a weird term
- 14:30:19 [weiler]
- scribe+
- 14:30:52 [weiler]
- fantasai: I filed this because we never use "maturity level" outside of the process doc, because it's so awkward. People use other terms.
- 14:31:17 [weiler]
- ... I want us to pick a term than can be used comfortably outside the process.
- 14:31:28 [Ralph]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/455
- 14:31:32 [florian]
- q+
- 14:31:37 [weiler]
- ... I recommend "maturity stages"
- 14:31:42 [Ralph]
- Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/455
- 14:31:53 [plh]
- ack florian
- 14:32:06 [weiler]
- ... this avoids conflict with "level of spec"
- 14:32:38 [weiler]
- florian: I don't have a strong opinion, but if we can land something , great.
- 14:32:44 [weiler]
- plh: prefer to not bikeshed this here.
- 14:32:55 [weiler]
- ... May I defer to florian and fantasai?
- 14:33:37 [weiler]
- fantasai: i proposed something. if you weren't paying attention, you might not even notice the change.
- 14:34:01 [plh]
- q+
- 14:34:15 [plh]
- ack plh
- 14:34:26 [weiler]
- plh: my sense is thiat this isn't worth it.
- 14:34:47 [weiler]
- fantasai: the advantage is that people are obviously uncomfortable using "level".
- 14:35:32 [weiler]
- q+
- 14:35:44 [weiler]
- florian: this is used all over the place outside the process.
- 14:35:44 [fantasai]
- plh: HOw about make a PR and we'll discuss it
- 14:35:45 [plh]
- ack weiler
- 14:35:56 [fantasai]
- fantasai: That's a lot of work to get rejected if ppl don't like it
- 14:36:04 [fantasai]
- fantasai: decide the term, and then we'll make a PR
- 14:36:14 [fantasai]
- s/outside/inside/
- 14:36:26 [fantasai]
- weiler: I wonder if the issue is not the term, but that our ppl don' care about the different levels?
- 14:36:34 [fantasai]
- weiler: Not the term, but why do we have stages?
- 14:36:47 [fantasai]
- weiler: and in that case why bother
- 14:36:59 [weiler]
- fantasai: people do talk about them, but maybe with term "status".
- 14:37:07 [plh]
- https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=REC also uses "maturity level"
- 14:37:15 [weiler]
- weiler: fine, then go paint the bikeshed.
- 14:37:19 [fantasai]
- plh, because it's closely linked to the Process
- 14:37:32 [weiler]
- plh: then go propose it and give it a month
- 14:37:39 [weiler]
- fantasai: I did it 2 years ago.
- 14:37:48 [weiler]
- plh: people pushed back then
- 14:38:00 [weiler]
- florian: I don't think "wait" works. we did that.
- 14:38:11 [weiler]
- ... maybe "here's the action absent objections"
- 14:38:22 [weiler]
- plh: fine, so how long to allow for objections? July 20?
- 14:39:32 [weiler]
- plh: done.
- 14:39:39 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:39:39 [Zakim]
- agendum 6 -- TAG Appointment: Review the proposal before sending it to the AB -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:39:57 [fantasai]
- Topic: TAG Appointments
- 14:40:05 [fantasai]
- florian: The general idea, we have a TAG election, and it elects part of the TAG
- 14:40:14 [fantasai]
- florian: We used to have 3 ppl appointed by Director, but we won't have a Director
- 14:40:17 [fantasai]
- florian: so what do we do?
- 14:40:30 [fantasai]
- florian: Current idea is to form a TAG Appointment Committee to do the appointing
- 14:40:30 [plh]
- Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/608
- 14:40:44 [fantasai]
- florian: currently it's formed during the election, and makes a decision after the election
- 14:40:49 [fantasai]
- florian: in order to be able to balance the elected TAG
- 14:41:00 [fantasai]
- florian: That part isn't too complicated, what's complicated is who is on that committee?
- 14:41:10 [fantasai]
- florian: We had a notion that it would be a subset of TAG and subset of chairs
- 14:41:23 [fantasai]
- florian: fantasai observed that subsetting chairs is time-consuming, and maybe we can just take them all
- 14:41:35 [weiler]
- q+
- 14:41:46 [fantasai]
- florian: that gets us a broad community, can more easily see what expertise is missing
- 14:42:01 [fantasai]
- florian: So this gets us a simplified process for setting up the committee
- 14:42:22 [fantasai]
- weiler: So you think it's easier to get consensus in a larger group than to run random selection?
- 14:42:34 [fantasai]
- weiler: I think the question is, what's likely to get us to a better outcome
- 14:42:46 [fantasai]
- florian: getting consensus in a large group can take awhile
- 14:43:03 [fantasai]
- florian: subsetting is not just the random selection, you have to see if the selected ppl are willing to show up
- 14:43:11 [fantasai]
- florian: so you need to run the process multiple time
- 14:43:21 [fantasai]
- florian: ...
- 14:43:24 [Ralph]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+tag+label%3A%22Director-free%3A+TAG+Appointments%22 related issues labeled "Director-free: TAG Appointments"
- 14:43:31 [fantasai]
- florian: not conceptually hard, but it takes awhile to get to an actual set of people
- 14:43:40 [fantasai]
- weiler: I assume we can make that work
- 14:43:45 [plh]
- q+
- 14:43:48 [plh]
- ack weiler
- 14:43:51 [plh]
- ack plh
- 14:43:57 [fantasai]
- florian: That was the initial assumption, is why we wrote it that way
- 14:44:13 [fantasai]
- plh: I think I agree with Sam, easier to find consensus
- 14:44:25 [fantasai]
- plh: Also this would change the balance of the committee, because only one member of the Team
- 14:44:33 [fantasai]
- plh: and many chairs
- 14:44:57 [fantasai]
- plh: so I tend to agree with Sam, go through the pain of selecting 4 chairs
- 14:45:04 [fantasai]
- plh: so that we can save time getting consensus
- 14:45:15 [Ralph]
- scribe+
- 14:45:34 [florian]
- [by the way, the suggestion from fantasai I was commenting about is https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/608]
- 14:45:38 [Ralph]
- fantasai: I made the proposal from watching the Council experiment process run
- 14:45:57 [Ralph]
- ... I agree it's harder to get consensus in a larger group
- 14:46:15 [Ralph]
- ... it's easier to have some kinds of discussions in a smaller group
- 14:46:16 [jeff]
- jeff has joined #w3process
- 14:46:49 [Ralph]
- ... I was also concerned about the Team participant being drowned out
- 14:47:07 [fantasai]
- weiler: I've been on the IETF NomCom, 7 people appointing 3
- 14:47:14 [fantasai]
- weiler: It's a lot of work, it eats a lot of time
- 14:47:30 [fantasai]
- weiler: it's going to be simpler here, fact that you're selecting ppl for the same position (TAG member) simplifies it
- 14:47:37 [fantasai]
- weiler: but nom matter what it's a lot of work
- 14:47:53 [fantasai]
- weiler: From IETF experience, some things I might tweak in how you do it to address florian's concern around e.g. are they willing to
- 14:47:58 [fantasai]
- weiler: but I feel confident that we can make it work
- 14:48:25 [fantasai]
- weiler: It's not going to be "meet twice for 2hrs and we're done", but not a bad process, probably a good one
- 14:48:41 [fantasai]
- weiler: what is the question in front of us today?
- 14:49:01 [fantasai]
- florian: Question from fantasai is should we a) adopt immediatley b) reject immediatly c) ask more people to weigh in
- 14:49:19 [fantasai]
- florian: The version in the document is with subsetting, and issue #608 is about removing subsetting
- 14:49:44 [fantasai]
- florian: My feeling is this group leans against #608, but maybe give more airtime outside the group?
- 14:49:54 [fantasai]
- weiler: We're looking at 80-100 people, it would not be workable
- 14:50:09 [fantasai]
- weiler: you're not going to get consensus, and you won't get the kind of confidentiality you need
- 14:50:13 [fantasai]
- weiler: I would kill it right now
- 14:50:20 [fantasai]
- weiler: You cannot do this with 40 people, even
- 14:50:31 [fantasai]
- florian: fantasai, willing ot let go?
- 14:50:36 [Ralph]
- <ralph> +1; unworkable in practice
- 14:50:37 [fantasai]
- fantasai: yes, I defer to weiler's experience
- 14:51:00 [fantasai]
- RESOLVED: Close no change
- 14:51:30 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Director-free%3A+TAG+Appointments%22
- 14:51:36 [fantasai]
- florian: We do have a bunch of other issues about the TAC, I haven't looked at them in awhile
- 14:51:41 [fantasai]
- florian: encourage everyone to have a look
- 14:51:51 [fantasai]
- florian: otherwise, time we revisited those
- 14:51:51 [weiler]
- s/IETF NomCom,/IETF NomCom, which is 10 people (+ 5 not voting) appointing ~12; this is/
- 14:53:00 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:53:00 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 -- Process 2022 issues -- taken up [from plh]
- 14:53:12 [fantasai]
- Topic: Process 2022 Triage
- 14:53:32 [fantasai]
- plh: Looking for volunteers to prepare more of these for discussion
- 14:53:39 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:53:39 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 was just opened, plh
- 14:53:45 [plh]
- zakim, close agendum 7
- 14:53:45 [Zakim]
- agendum 7, Process 2022 issues, closed
- 14:53:46 [Zakim]
- I see nothing remaining on the agenda
- 14:53:49 [plh]
- zakim, move to next agendum
- 14:53:49 [Zakim]
- I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, plh
- 14:54:24 [fantasai]
- plh: 486 will be on next agenda
- 14:54:35 [fantasai]
- plh: Thanks everyone, let's continue next time
- 14:54:38 [fantasai]
- Meeting closed.
- 14:55:16 [wseltzer]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:55:16 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/22-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer
- 15:00:14 [Ralph]
- zakim, bye
- 15:00:14 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees have been weiler, fantasai, wseltzer, plh, florian, jeff, Ralph
- 15:00:14 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #w3process
- 15:59:01 [TallTed]
- TallTed has joined #w3process