Meeting minutes
plh: Process is going to mainly manufactured by the Team, given attendance today.
Review of Agenda
plh: Two issues candidate to close
<wseltzer_bot> +1 to close
plh: recusal from council
plh: pull request from Florian on Director-free
plh: issue from fantasai about "Maturity Level"
plh: and TAG appointments, to review where we are on the issue
plh: If we have time, we can do any other 2022 issue
plh: Should we dive in?
florian: Dive!
Issues up for closure
Issues for Closure
Stronger emphasis on reaching Recommendation
github: https://
plh: Any objections to close this issue? We have an open PR on the Guide, and no proposals for altering the Process
florian: Close it
RESOLUTION: Close #443
<plh> https://
Process should requre CR transition to document plan for CR exit
github: https://
weiler: [describes issue]
Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process
various: let's close
RESOLUTION: Close #462
<wseltzer> +1 to close without change
CG and BG processes into Process
github: https://
plh: I fear we have other priorities
plh: Are we OK to defer this yet again?
<weiler> fantasai: this is a big topic; I'm not sure what's being proposed is the way forward
plh: Doubt more important than DF
plh: Proposal is to defer yet again
florian: Yes, defer
florian: They are *mentioned* in the Process, but defined elsewhere
jeff__: Small thing related to this context, have we made adequately clear that CEPC applies to CGs and BGs?
wseltzer: Yes, it is in the Join to those groups
jeff__: To me that's the most important linkage that we might have
weiler: Rather than merely defer, how are we going ot get communities to tackle this?
weiler: It's bigger than us
weiler: How do we get tackle
florian: I don't even know what we're trying to achieve, and we have other things we do want to achieve
florian: if can wrap it up in 5min... otherwise defer
weiler: not defer for us to do later, but kick it to some other part of community
plh: We are the community. We're the CG for the Process
<wseltzer> [Unless someone who proposes an alternative comes forward, I think we drop it.]
plh: If someone wants to work on this, not going to object for sure
plh: do we need to actively assign the work?
plh: is deferred, not closed
plh: I just want to send a clear signal that we don't have resources right now to take care of it
<florian> fantasai: much of why CG's need more process is because they're trying to do things that should be done in WGs
Director-Free: Recusal from W3C Council
<florian> fantasai: so we should rather look into why they're doing that and fix that problem isntead
RESOLUTION: Defer this cycle
Recusal
plh: We have some stuff in Process, do we need to put more?
plh: We can always put stuff in the Guide, which is easier to change
<Ralph> ["recusal" is not the currently preferred term]
plh: Harder to enforce, though, because not part of process
plh: Question is, do we have enough in the Process for this today?
plh: Last time I checked it doesn't reflect what we're actually doing
plh: Either need to change experiment or process
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to react to jeff__
<Ralph> 5.7.2. The W3C Council Director-free draft
jeff__: In my mind, recusal is not unrelated to dismissal, and dissatisfied that dismissal is working as we need it to
jeff__: Too early to come to a conclusion, need to keep experimenting
jeff__: I think we need a post-mortem for the experiments
florian: I thin what's in process is neither too much nor enough, it's outdated
florian: I think we action me to update
florian: and we can point at whereever we're maintaining the dismissal thing or whatever
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
<jeff__> +1 to florian
<Zakim> jeff__, you wanted to florian
plh: Fine with putting an issue and deferring conversation
plh: 2 questions, if we defer, should be deferring after TPAC. But that might push us later into 2023
florian: I think this is up to AB
florian: They need to say what rules we adopt
plh: Was going to ask if we're right group to discuss these things
florian: We're the right group to draft text, but the AB needs to say what to draft
plh: The AB is super busy...
florian: I'm in both groups, and we have quite a few members here who are regulars of the AB
florian: I don't feel this group is the right group to draw conclusions from the experiments
jeff__: I think that for the entire Process, it's managed by the AB, and they delegate a lot of the work to us
jeff__: if they want to weigh in they can
jeff__: We work with the best information we have
plh: Any objection to defer until after TPAC this conversation, to allow experiments to proceed/
[discussion of timing]
plh: if AB doesn't get back to us by TPAC, we should try to make progress ourselves
florian: Meanwhile, action me to add an issue to Process
ACTION: Florian: Add issue in Process about recusal/dismissal
Let the Team rather than the Director handle progression on TR
plh: good at deferring things today...
Let the Team handle progression on TR
<plh> https://
florian: fantasai and I looked at this
<plh> Github: https://
florian: There was request from Léonie that when Team moves things forward with weak justifications, Team needs to document it
florian: this was already in the text
florian: Also comment from dsinger wrt Team approving advancement on the REC track, not clearly tied to criteria in Process
florian: Director could block for any reason, not just procedural
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
florian: and not based on personal opinions
florian: so text has been updated to tie their approval to such requirements
florian: to avoid making it seem the Team can block based on their own feeling
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
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
florian: so we added the fact that if the Team wants to do this, it needs the approval of the AB and TAG
florian: so that's a new idea for your consideration
florian: I think if we need ability to forcefully downgrade a document, should get some approval
plh: We can review at the next meeting
plh: Any questions about this?
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
plh: Encourage Ralph to look at this, since the Team is functionally Ralph in a lot of those cases
florian: PR isn't intended to change anything that we're actually doing, should be compatible with existing practice
weiler: ?? question in that thread, Team's decision are objectable?
florian: yes
weiler: what about Director decision?
florian: Decisions -- all decisions -- are objectable
plh: New process clarifies that
florian: So goal is to land it next time?
plh: yep
Maturity Level is a weird term
Maturity Level is a weird term
fantasai: I filed this because we never use "maturity level" outside of the process doc, because it's so awkward. People use other terms.
… I want us to pick a term than can be used comfortably outside the process.
<Ralph> https://
fantasai: I recommend "maturity stages"
<Ralph> Github: https://
fantasai: this avoids conflict with "level of spec"
florian: I don't have a strong opinion, but if we can land something , great.
plh: prefer to not bikeshed this here.
… May I defer to florian and fantasai?
fantasai: i proposed something. if you weren't paying attention, you might not even notice the change.
plh: my sense is thiat this isn't worth it.
fantasai: the advantage is that people are obviously uncomfortable using "level".
florian: this is used all over the place inside the process.
plh: HOw about make a PR and we'll discuss it
fantasai: That's a lot of work to get rejected if ppl don't like it
fantasai: decide the term, and then we'll make a PR
weiler: I wonder if the issue is not the term, but that our ppl don' care about the different levels?
weiler: Not the term, but why do we have stages?
weiler: and in that case why bother
fantasai: people do talk about them, but maybe with term "status".
<plh> https://
weiler: fine, then go paint the bikeshed.
plh, because it's closely linked to the Process
plh: then go propose it and give it a month
fantasai: I did it 2 years ago.
plh: people pushed back then
florian: I don't think "wait" works. we did that.
… maybe "here's the action absent objections"
plh: fine, so how long to allow for objections? July 20?
plh: done.
TAG Appointment: Review the proposal before sending it to the AB
TAG Appointments
florian: The general idea, we have a TAG election, and it elects part of the TAG
florian: We used to have 3 ppl appointed by Director, but we won't have a Director
florian: so what do we do?
florian: Current idea is to form a TAG Appointment Committee to do the appointing
<plh> Github: https://
florian: currently it's formed during the election, and makes a decision after the election
florian: in order to be able to balance the elected TAG
florian: That part isn't too complicated, what's complicated is who is on that committee?
florian: We had a notion that it would be a subset of TAG and subset of chairs
florian: fantasai observed that subsetting chairs is time-consuming, and maybe we can just take them all
florian: that gets us a broad community, can more easily see what expertise is missing
florian: So this gets us a simplified process for setting up the committee
weiler: So you think it's easier to get consensus in a larger group than to run random selection?
weiler: I think the question is, what's likely to get us to a better outcome
florian: getting consensus in a large group can take awhile
florian: subsetting is not just the random selection, you have to see if the selected ppl are willing to show up
florian: so you need to run the process multiple time
florian: ...
<Ralph> related issues labeled "Director-free: TAG Appointments"
florian: not conceptually hard, but it takes awhile to get to an actual set of people
weiler: I assume we can make that work
florian: That was the initial assumption, is why we wrote it that way
plh: I think I agree with Sam, easier to find consensus
plh: Also this would change the balance of the committee, because only one member of the Team
plh: and many chairs
plh: so I tend to agree with Sam, go through the pain of selecting 4 chairs
plh: so that we can save time getting consensus
<florian> [by the way, the suggestion from fantasai I was commenting about is https://
fantasai: I made the proposal from watching the Council experiment process run
… I agree it's harder to get consensus in a larger group
… it's easier to have some kinds of discussions in a smaller group
… I was also concerned about the Team participant being drowned out
weiler: I've been on the IETF NomCom, which is 10 people (+ 5 not voting) appointing ~12; this is 7 people appointing 3
weiler: It's a lot of work, it eats a lot of time
weiler: it's going to be simpler here, fact that you're selecting ppl for the same position (TAG member) simplifies it
weiler: but nom matter what it's a lot of work
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
weiler: but I feel confident that we can make it work
weiler: It's not going to be "meet twice for 2hrs and we're done", but not a bad process, probably a good one
weiler: what is the question in front of us today?
florian: Question from fantasai is should we a) adopt immediatley b) reject immediatly c) ask more people to weigh in
florian: The version in the document is with subsetting, and issue #608 is about removing subsetting
florian: My feeling is this group leans against #608, but maybe give more airtime outside the group?
weiler: We're looking at 80-100 people, it would not be workable
weiler: you're not going to get consensus, and you won't get the kind of confidentiality you need
weiler: I would kill it right now
weiler: You cannot do this with 40 people, even
florian: fantasai, willing ot let go?
<Ralph> +1; unworkable in practice
fantasai: yes, I defer to weiler's experience
RESOLUTION: Close no change
florian: We do have a bunch of other issues about the TAC, I haven't looked at them in awhile
florian: encourage everyone to have a look
florian: otherwise, time we revisited those
Process 2022 issues
Process 2022 Triage
plh: Looking for volunteers to prepare more of these for discussion
plh: 486 will be on next agenda
plh: Thanks everyone, let's continue next time
Meeting closed.