14:01:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:01:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/11-w3process-irc
14:01:27 <plh> plh has joined #w3process
14:01:38 <cwilso> scribenick:fantasai
14:01:48 <fantasai> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/cc54cb1b-663e-4914-a2be-4c465823901d/20220811T070000
14:02:09 <plh> scribe+
14:02:45 <plh> Topic: Propose to close
14:02:50 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/601#issuecomment-1099986751
14:03:06 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/601#issuecomment-1099986751
14:03:31 <plh> fantasai: raised as a question about Member confidential. Florian suggested to let it be handled by contacts
14:03:33 <plh> ... ok to close?
14:03:34 <dsinger> q+
14:03:50 <plh> dsinger: was that about FO confidentiality?
14:03:55 <plh> florian: it was general
14:04:32 <plh> ... the question is answered by the Process. The Process tells you how to share things required by the Process. For anything else, that's up to you
14:04:46 <plh> ... we have a process to make things more public when necessary
14:05:10 <plh> ... if someone wants to turn this into a Guide, sure. but the Process does not need to change
14:06:06 <plh> Topic: Pull requests
14:06:26 <fantasai> Subtopic: remove mention of COO
14:06:28 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/614
14:06:52 <plh> fantasai: Tantek suggesting removing the COO from a Note
14:07:10 <plh> florian: Ralph is the COO, but the Process doesn't define anything related to the COO. So, unnecessary.
14:07:35 <plh> plh: +1
14:07:40 <cwilso> +1
14:07:41 <fantasai> plh: if CEO wants to delegate to COO can always do so
14:07:50 <plh> Resolved: merge #614
14:08:10 <fantasai> Subtopic: Advance Notice for MOUs
14:08:12 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/606
14:08:16 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/619
14:08:48 <plh> fantasai: we have a proposal
14:09:08 <plh> florian: there was no requirement for the team to put a notice.
14:09:21 <plh> ... also incidentally inclusion of AC reviews
14:09:56 <dsinger> q+
14:10:12 <plh> dsinger: the old text was linking to AC review
14:10:19 <plh> florian: that was a mistake
14:10:36 <plh> ... but we did not want to have an AC review
14:11:05 <fantasai> plh: This talks about providing a draft for the AC to review, but isn't an "AC Review"
14:11:14 <fantasai> fantasai: Let's take a straw poll
14:11:56 <fantasai> fantasai: happy to leave it open for 2 weeks, but wanted to see what ppl on this call think
14:12:03 <fantasai> plh: timing of review period?
14:12:17 <plh> florian: that was deliberate. the AC can appeal decisions
14:12:29 <fantasai> ... we expect the Team to do something reasonable
14:12:35 <plh> ... the team will have to be reasonable
14:12:52 <florian> s/reasonable/reasonable, and the appeal can be used if not/
14:13:01 <plh> fantasai: ok, we'll propose to merge in 2 weeks
14:13:15 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge in 2 weeks if no concerns found
14:13:32 <plh> fantasai: we'll merge after the call
14:14:10 <fantasai> Topic: Thresholds for Active Participation
14:14:18 <fantasai> fantasai: Team update?
14:14:25 <fantasai> plh: not yet, forgot to talk to Vivien
14:14:40 <fantasai> Topic: Questions to Ask the AB
14:14:57 <fantasai> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2022-08-BER#2022-08-16
14:15:33 <plh> fantasai: any other topics?
14:15:41 <plh> ... one is ability to delegate
14:15:50 <plh> ... other is TAG appointment committee
14:16:11 <plh> ... continuity of TAG terms
14:16:42 <plh> q+
14:16:59 <plh> ack ds
14:17:09 <plh> ack plh
14:17:22 <fantasai> plh: One thing not on that list is dismissal/recusal
14:17:31 <fantasai> ... still think the current implementation doesn't match our draft
14:17:48 <fantasai> ... maybe too early to talk about it in the AB, still running experiments
14:17:56 <fantasai> ... need to have conversations at TPAC
14:18:04 <fantasai> ... if anyone is going to see, let's adopt DF process as is
14:18:09 <florian> q+
14:18:13 <fantasai> ... I'll say, we're not even following it right now, how can we adopt
14:18:19 <plh> ack florian
14:18:27 <fantasai> florian: First, in the AB wiki about the agenda, there are 2 sections
14:18:30 <dsinger> q+ to agree, we should get AB auth to update to dismiss/renounce
14:18:37 <fantasai> ... one is about genera Process, another about the Council specifically
14:18:41 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
14:18:42 <fantasai> ... and the second section covers this question
14:18:51 <fantasai> florian: Second, proposal isn't to adopt the council word for word as is
14:18:56 <fantasai> ... but rather, we'll plan to tweak
14:19:03 <fantasai> ... but we agree that the Council is the way we're going
14:19:10 <fantasai> ... let's merge the text in, and start adjusting it inline
14:19:15 <fantasai> ... rather than wondering whether we will adopt
14:19:22 <fantasai> ... about the text in general, there are things to refine
14:19:28 <fantasai> ... especially the dismissal process, as you note
14:19:53 <fantasai> ... for that, too, I think the AB should say "what we're doing now is roughly right, let's write it down and tweak it" or "don't write anything yet, leave undefined", or "let's do something else entirely"
14:19:57 <fantasai> plh: makes sense
14:20:02 <fantasai> plh: we can make the AB discuss that then
14:20:04 <cwilso> q?
14:20:12 <fantasai> plh: I don't have anything else to suggest for the agenda then
14:20:12 <plh> ack ds
14:20:13 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to agree, we should get AB auth to update to dismiss/renounce
14:20:20 <fantasai> dsinger: I reordered the questions
14:20:27 <cwilso> q+
14:20:28 <fantasai> ... I think we should ask the overall question last
14:20:45 <fantasai> ... but yes, we should write this up and get it into the DF branch
14:20:49 <fantasai> ... adopt as P2023 and adopt it
14:21:03 <fantasai> plh: Are we sure the TAG is ok with that? It would be awkward they think it's a bad idea
14:21:09 <cwilso> Approximately this?  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/278#issuecomment-995868961
14:21:10 <fantasai> dsinger: I don't think the TAG is opposed
14:21:29 <fantasai> ... they're unsure about TAC, but I don't think they have any concerns with adopting the Council
14:21:32 <fantasai> florian: [missed]
14:21:59 <fantasai> dsinger: Would like the AB to have on the record that we will adopt DF in 2023, and that includes Council, or if it doesn't want Council then what
14:22:24 <florian> s/[missed]/The AB isn't formally adopting P2023 yet, there's still plenty of time for further feedback from others, including the TAG/
14:22:41 <fantasai> [discussion of the dismissal writeup cwilso linked earlier]
14:23:00 <plh> fantasai: we should update the text in the DF branch with the latest thinking
14:23:13 <fantasai> florian: it's out of date, and there's an issue pointing to the AB's latest thinking
14:23:20 <fantasai> ... AB hasn't said their latest thinking is any good
14:23:24 <fantasai> ... and wants it in the draft
14:23:28 <fantasai> ... so haven't folded in yet
14:23:28 <dsinger> q-
14:23:39 <plh> florian: it's out of date, we have an issue about. pointing to the latest thinking from the AB, but the AB hasn't said they like their thinking
14:23:41 <cwilso> ack me
14:23:49 <florian> s/issue/inline issue/
14:23:50 <fantasai> plh: Let's let the AB talk about it
14:24:55 <fantasai> Topic: TAG and AB formally reviewing charters
14:24:58 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/328
14:25:02 <fantasai> plh: 2 questions
14:25:16 <fantasai> plh: how formal do we want those reviews to be? the more formal it is, the more it puts pressure on the timeline
14:25:23 <fantasai> ... today we do informal horizontal review of charters
14:25:34 <fantasai> ... we do them, but it's not encoded into the Process, just encoded in the Guide
14:25:37 <fantasai> ... and they do time out
14:25:47 <fantasai> ... if we don't get review from Privacy in a month, we'll still move forward
14:25:48 <florian> q+
14:25:56 <fantasai> ... because after that there's review from W3M ...
14:26:12 <fantasai> ... sometimes charters can have months of conversation in community as well, so by the time they get to this stage they're wanting to go
14:26:26 <fantasai> ... so question of whether TAG/AB is able to do in a timely fashion is a question
14:26:34 <fantasai> plh: Second question is how much should we inform the AC of this?
14:26:42 <fantasai> ... e.g. for specicifcation transition, we link to the transition request
14:26:56 <dsinger> q+ to make a confession
14:26:57 <fantasai> ... if the AC wants to review that, and how the Director arrived ad conclusion, they can follow the links
14:27:13 <fantasai> ... That's not necessary to answer in the Process, but would welcome input
14:27:25 <fantasai> ... how can we make it clearer that there's information in those links to follow?
14:27:53 <fantasai> florian: for this horizontal review phase on charters, it would be good to visibly survface to the AC if any HR Group has raised concerns, AC will have that information in their vote
14:28:00 <fantasai> ... I suspect includeing TAG/AB review in that is reasonable
14:28:08 <fantasai> ... but both the TAG and AB have a very heavy schedule
14:28:20 <fantasai> ... so it will be difficult to include in their schedule
14:28:24 <plh> q+
14:28:41 <plh> ack florian
14:28:45 <fantasai> ... so suggestion from someone was to flag if any individual on the AB or TAG has raised a concern
14:28:45 <plh> ack ds
14:28:45 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to make a confession
14:28:55 <fantasai> dsinger: First, a confession, when AC review linked to transition
14:29:03 <fantasai> ... I thought that was a proof of the request
14:29:10 <fantasai> ... rather that there was information there
14:29:18 <fantasai> ... I suspect we need to ask AB and TAG how involved they want to be
14:29:53 <fantasai> ... I suspect AB and TAG  in a less stressful and more organized world would be able to assign an individual to skim through charters and check if it needs a more thorough review
14:30:07 <fantasai> ... but I think the AB and TAG need a community discussion
14:30:23 <fantasai> ... IIRC someone (mnot?) mentioned that someone needs to take a global look at what are we doing procedurally and technically
14:30:31 <fantasai> ... if not the AB and TAG, is it the Team? Other members of the community?
14:30:38 <fantasai> ... I don't want to add to the AB and TAG workload by mandating something
14:30:45 <fantasai> ... but I think there's a reasonable question here
14:30:50 <plh> ack fantasai
14:31:17 <plh> fantasai: when I filed the issue, I was just asking for the ability for the TAG and AB to participate in the AC review
14:31:30 <plh> ... for earlier review, that might still be valuable
14:31:35 <dsinger> q+ to say that there is a difference between an *ability* and opportunity for TAG/AB to review, and a *requirement* that they do so
14:31:41 <florian> q+
14:31:48 <plh> ... we don't have to include things in the process yet
14:32:12 <plh> ... for a requirement, it would have to be included.
14:32:26 <plh> ... +1 on this being an increase in the workload
14:33:15 <plh> ... the chartering process needs to be easier to ensure specs to be on the rec track under a formal process
14:33:49 <plh> ... if the AB and the TAG want to get involved, they can ask
14:34:08 <plh> ... but I don't think we should be requiring it for now
14:34:33 <plh> ... one: consider whether the AB/TAG to formally review alongside of AC reps
14:34:43 <plh> ... this might be useful
14:35:13 <plh> ... second: it might be useful for the Team Contact to update the AB and the TAG on charters being worked on
14:35:34 <plh> ack plh
14:35:42 <fantasai> plh: +1 to what you just said
14:35:46 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
14:35:50 <fantasai> ... as a reminder, the work we do on Charters is documented in GH
14:35:54 <fantasai> ... in the strategy pipeline repo
14:36:15 <fantasai> ... If tomorrow you want us to send notice to AB/TAG every time we start review of a charter
14:36:20 <fantasai> ... [missed something about Dom and software]
14:36:33 <fantasai> ... Can send notice for horizontal review of a charter
14:36:37 <fantasai> ... can also make part of Team update
14:36:44 <fantasai> ... unsure how much it's needed to mention thosethings
14:36:49 <fantasai> ... but anyone can see that
14:36:58 <fantasai> ... it's a public repo
14:37:07 <plh> ack ds
14:37:07 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to say that there is a difference between an *ability* and opportunity for TAG/AB to review, and a *requirement* that they do so
14:37:21 <fantasai> dsinger: Want to distinguish between requirement vs opportunity for AB and TAG to review
14:37:28 <fantasai> ... want to be clear that this is opportunity, not requirement
14:37:36 <fantasai> ... so questions are, how do we make them aware of the opportunity
14:37:43 <fantasai> ... and how do we accept their feedback?
14:37:55 <fantasai> ... Giving them a formal notice gives them an opportunity
14:38:05 <fantasai> ... and giving them a place to file issues solves the second problem
14:38:13 <fantasai> plh: There's a template for where to raise issues
14:38:33 <fantasai> dsinger: Then as part of AB and TAG meetings, we can say, we had these three charters come across our plate, does anyone feel need to review?
14:38:43 <fantasai> plh: We send emails when we start a review, so we can add AB and TAG to those
14:38:56 <fantasai> dsinger: So it would be easy for AB and TAG to add that to the formal part of the meeting
14:38:58 <dsinger> ack ds
14:39:02 <fantasai> florian: Anybody can file FO about anything
14:39:13 <fantasai> ... so technically AB and TAG members and members of my neighborhood association can file FOs
14:39:19 <fantasai> ... but not being *asked* to do so during AC review
14:39:25 <fantasai> ... You can send an email, but don't get a form
14:39:32 <fantasai> ... given that you can already do it, not a new power...
14:39:52 <fantasai> dsinger: Sense of "AB feels there's problems" is different from "Florian has a problem"
14:39:59 <fantasai> florian: I can still do that, but there's no form
14:40:12 <fantasai> plh: How do you formally object before review?
14:40:18 <fantasai> florian: You send an email to the Team
14:40:25 <fantasai> plh: In the Process?
14:40:29 <fantasai> florian: It says you can, just doesn't say how
14:40:40 <fantasai> [florian goes to look for quotes]
14:40:59 <fantasai> florian: We routinely have ppl in WGs saying they would FO, and chairs continue the discussion
14:41:05 <fantasai> plh: That's a spec, not a charter
14:41:13 <fantasai> plh: let's not get into that today
14:41:17 <fantasai> florian: it's this issue, kinda
14:41:56 <plh> fantasai: let's not resolve today who is allowed to raise formal objections on charters
14:42:17 <plh> ... we can add AB and TAG in the loop informally
14:42:21 <florian> +1
14:42:37 <TallTed> present+
14:42:54 <plh> dsinger: let's propose adding the notifications next week to the AB and then ask the TAG if the AB agrees
14:43:00 <florian> q-
14:43:02 <plh> ack florian
14:43:05 <plh> ack fantasai
14:43:05 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on repo
14:43:27 <plh> fantasai: the charters are in the strategy repos
14:43:50 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
14:44:32 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
14:45:05 <fantasai> ... but a lot of other things too, how to get a list just of charters open for review?
14:45:22 <fantasai> plh: But if we add to notification list, can just look at emails
14:45:45 <fantasai> fantasai: Seems that's it for this topic, any other action items?
14:46:05 <fantasai> Topic: New Proposed to Close
14:46:11 <florian> q+
14:46:22 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/284
14:47:01 <fantasai> florian: This might be OK to close, but there's also a whole pile of Council issues that are solved in the DF branch of the process
14:47:08 <plh> florian: there is a pile of issues that are open but resolved in the process
14:47:10 <fantasai> ... so at the point that we have an AB resolution that we're trying to adopt the Council
14:47:22 <fantasai> ... we'll be able to review all these open issues and close many of them out
14:47:51 <fantasai> ... "we've merged this text, we believe this issue has been addressed, if nobody objects we will closed"
14:47:58 <fantasai> florian: so this is a more general problem
14:49:03 <florian> s/resolved in the process/resolved in the director-free process branch/
14:49:24 <fantasai> plh: OK, I thikn we're done for today
14:49:30 <fantasai> Topic: Agenda
14:49:50 <fantasai> florian: speaking of agenda, I don't have a strong objection to including in calendar event, but I would prefer the calendar to just be about calendaring
14:49:54 <fantasai> ... and have an actual mail with the agenda
14:50:26 <TallTed> +1 to distinct email with agenda (though no objection to having it also in the calendar item)
14:50:37 <plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Aug/0000.html
14:50:48 <fantasai> fantasai: I also find it pretty annoying, it sends a ton of notifications every time the agenda gets tweaked
14:51:18 <fantasai> ... would prefer to get an email or to keep agenda in the wiki like the AB does
14:52:16 <fantasai> [discussion of calendaring notifications]
14:52:44 <fantasai> florian: For me this is the only group that does it this way, and I find it more odd than convenient
14:53:06 <fantasai> florian: I want the calendar event to exist, just a question of whether the agenda is in it or linked from it
14:53:25 <fantasai> dsinger: Super important that calendar is definitive on when and whether the meeting is happening
14:53:28 <fantasai> florian: the rest can figure out
14:53:51 <florian> s/the rest can figure out/the rest chairs can figure out/
14:54:07 <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Aug/
14:55:05 <fantasai> dsinger: Inline in calendar, I'm never sure if this is the agenda that repeats for each meeting, or if this is the agenda for this instance
14:55:14 <fantasai> plh: ok we can do separate email to the list
14:55:20 <fantasai> ... and link to it from the calendar
14:55:26 <fantasai> florian: or wiki or GH or whatever
14:55:27 <fantasai> plh: yeah
14:55:29 <fantasai> Meeting closed.
14:59:36 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #w3process
15:07:35 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
16:32:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/11-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
17:22:40 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
18:17:34 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process