Meeting minutes
Propose to close
github: https://
https://
fantasai: raised as a question about Member confidential. Florian suggested to let it be handled by contacts
… ok to close?
dsinger: was that about FO confidentiality?
florian: it was general
… 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
… we have a process to make things more public when necessary
… if someone wants to turn this into a Guide, sure. but the Process does not need to change
Pull requests
remove mention of COO
github: https://
fantasai: Tantek suggesting removing the COO from a Note
florian: Ralph is the COO, but the Process doesn't define anything related to the COO. So, unnecessary.
plh: +1
<cwilso> +1
plh: if CEO wants to delegate to COO can always do so
RESOLUTION: merge #614
Advance Notice for MOUs
github: https://
https://
fantasai: we have a proposal
florian: there was no requirement for the team to put a notice.
… also incidentally inclusion of AC reviews
dsinger: the old text was linking to AC review
florian: that was a mistake
… but we did not want to have an AC review
plh: This talks about providing a draft for the AC to review, but isn't an "AC Review"
fantasai: Let's take a straw poll
fantasai: happy to leave it open for 2 weeks, but wanted to see what ppl on this call think
plh: timing of review period?
florian: that was deliberate. the AC can appeal decisions
plh: we expect the Team to do something reasonable
florian: the team will have to be reasonable, and the appeal can be used if not
fantasai: ok, we'll propose to merge in 2 weeks
RESOLUTION: Merge in 2 weeks if no concerns found
fantasai: we'll merge after the call
Thresholds for Active Participation
fantasai: Team update?
plh: not yet, forgot to talk to Vivien
Questions to Ask the AB
https://
fantasai: any other topics?
… one is ability to delegate
… other is TAG appointment committee
… continuity of TAG terms
plh: One thing not on that list is dismissal/recusal
… still think the current implementation doesn't match our draft
… maybe too early to talk about it in the AB, still running experiments
… need to have conversations at TPAC
… if anyone is going to see, let's adopt DF process as is
… I'll say, we're not even following it right now, how can we adopt
florian: First, in the AB wiki about the agenda, there are 2 sections
… one is about genera Process, another about the Council specifically
… and the second section covers this question
florian: Second, proposal isn't to adopt the council word for word as is
… but rather, we'll plan to tweak
… but we agree that the Council is the way we're going
… let's merge the text in, and start adjusting it inline
… rather than wondering whether we will adopt
… about the text in general, there are things to refine
… especially the dismissal process, as you note
… 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"
plh: makes sense
plh: we can make the AB discuss that then
plh: I don't have anything else to suggest for the agenda then
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to agree, we should get AB auth to update to dismiss/renounce
dsinger: I reordered the questions
… I think we should ask the overall question last
… but yes, we should write this up and get it into the DF branch
… adopt as P2023 and adopt it
plh: Are we sure the TAG is ok with that? It would be awkward they think it's a bad idea
<cwilso> Approximately this? https://
dsinger: I don't think the TAG is opposed
… they're unsure about TAC, but I don't think they have any concerns with adopting the Council
florian: The AB isn't formally adopting P2023 yet, there's still plenty of time for further feedback from others, including the TAG
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
[discussion of the dismissal writeup cwilso linked earlier]
fantasai: we should update the text in the DF branch with the latest thinking
florian: it's out of date, and there's an issue pointing to the AB's latest thinking
… AB hasn't said their latest thinking is any good
… and wants it in the draft
… so haven't folded in yet
florian: it's out of date, we have an inline issue about. pointing to the latest thinking from the AB, but the AB hasn't said they like their thinking
plh: Let's let the AB talk about it
TAG and AB formally reviewing charters
github: https://
plh: 2 questions
plh: how formal do we want those reviews to be? the more formal it is, the more it puts pressure on the timeline
… today we do informal horizontal review of charters
… we do them, but it's not encoded into the Process, just encoded in the Guide
… and they do time out
… if we don't get review from Privacy in a month, we'll still move forward
… because after that there's review from W3M ...
… 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
… so question of whether TAG/AB is able to do in a timely fashion is a question
plh: Second question is how much should we inform the AC of this?
… e.g. for specicifcation transition, we link to the transition request
… if the AC wants to review that, and how the Director arrived ad conclusion, they can follow the links
… That's not necessary to answer in the Process, but would welcome input
… how can we make it clearer that there's information in those links to follow?
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
… I suspect includeing TAG/AB review in that is reasonable
… but both the TAG and AB have a very heavy schedule
… so it will be difficult to include in their schedule
… so suggestion from someone was to flag if any individual on the AB or TAG has raised a concern
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to make a confession
dsinger: First, a confession, when AC review linked to transition
… I thought that was a proof of the request
… rather that there was information there
… I suspect we need to ask AB and TAG how involved they want to be
… 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
… but I think the AB and TAG need a community discussion
… IIRC someone (mnot?) mentioned that someone needs to take a global look at what are we doing procedurally and technically
… if not the AB and TAG, is it the Team? Other members of the community?
… I don't want to add to the AB and TAG workload by mandating something
… but I think there's a reasonable question here
fantasai: when I filed the issue, I was just asking for the ability for the TAG and AB to participate in the AC review
… for earlier review, that might still be valuable
… we don't have to include things in the process yet
… for a requirement, it would have to be included.
… +1 on this being an increase in the workload
… the chartering process needs to be easier to ensure specs to be on the rec track under a formal process
… if the AB and the TAG want to get involved, they can ask
… but I don't think we should be requiring it for now
… one: consider whether the AB/TAG to formally review alongside of AC reps
… this might be useful
… second: it might be useful for the Team Contact to update the AB and the TAG on charters being worked on
plh: +1 to what you just said
https://
plh: as a reminder, the work we do on Charters is documented in GH
… in the strategy pipeline repo
… If tomorrow you want us to send notice to AB/TAG every time we start review of a charter
… [missed something about Dom and software]
… Can send notice for horizontal review of a charter
… can also make part of Team update
… unsure how much it's needed to mention thosethings
… but anyone can see that
… it's a public repo
<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
dsinger: Want to distinguish between requirement vs opportunity for AB and TAG to review
… want to be clear that this is opportunity, not requirement
… so questions are, how do we make them aware of the opportunity
… and how do we accept their feedback?
… Giving them a formal notice gives them an opportunity
… and giving them a place to file issues solves the second problem
plh: There's a template for where to raise issues
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?
plh: We send emails when we start a review, so we can add AB and TAG to those
dsinger: So it would be easy for AB and TAG to add that to the formal part of the meeting
florian: Anybody can file FO about anything
… so technically AB and TAG members and members of my neighborhood association can file FOs
… but not being *asked* to do so during AC review
… You can send an email, but don't get a form
… given that you can already do it, not a new power...
dsinger: Sense of "AB feels there's problems" is different from "Florian has a problem"
florian: I can still do that, but there's no form
plh: How do you formally object before review?
florian: You send an email to the Team
plh: In the Process?
florian: It says you can, just doesn't say how
[florian goes to look for quotes]
florian: We routinely have ppl in WGs saying they would FO, and chairs continue the discussion
plh: That's a spec, not a charter
plh: let's not get into that today
florian: it's this issue, kinda
fantasai: let's not resolve today who is allowed to raise formal objections on charters
… we can add AB and TAG in the loop informally
<florian> +1
dsinger: let's propose adding the notifications next week to the AB and then ask the TAG if the AB agrees
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on repo
fantasai: the charters are in the strategy repos
https://
florian: but a lot of other things too, how to get a list just of charters open for review?
plh: But if we add to notification list, can just look at emails
fantasai: Seems that's it for this topic, any other action items?
New Proposed to Close
https://
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
florian: there is a pile of issues that are open but resolved in the director-free process branch
… so at the point that we have an AB resolution that we're trying to adopt the Council
… we'll be able to review all these open issues and close many of them out
… "we've merged this text, we believe this issue has been addressed, if nobody objects we will closed"
florian: so this is a more general problem
plh: OK, I thikn we're done for today
Agenda
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
… and have an actual mail with the agenda
<TallTed> +1 to distinct email with agenda (though no objection to having it also in the calendar item)
https://
fantasai: I also find it pretty annoying, it sends a ton of notifications every time the agenda gets tweaked
… would prefer to get an email or to keep agenda in the wiki like the AB does
[discussion of calendaring notifications]
florian: For me this is the only group that does it this way, and I find it more odd than convenient
florian: I want the calendar event to exist, just a question of whether the agenda is in it or linked from it
dsinger: Super important that calendar is definitive on when and whether the meeting is happening
florian: the rest chairs can figure out
https://
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
plh: ok we can do separate email to the list
… and link to it from the calendar
florian: or wiki or GH or whatever
plh: yeah
Meeting closed.