Meeting minutes
Pull Requests
Director-Free [implementing AB decisions]
#664
Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council
<plh> Github: https://
github: Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council
github: https://
florian: PR implements what the AB said
jeff: Firstly, agree with Florian that it's pretty minimal and consistent w/ AB
… want to note that ability to delegate is implied by section 2.2
… (which says CEO can delegate any responsibility)
… but fine to clarify
florian: There was expectation of fufilling in person, so clarification is helpful
plh: Any other place where we don't want CEO to delegate?
florian: if you find one file an issue!
plh: ok, thanks for noticing that, Jeff
plh: Any objection to merge 664?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #664
RESOLUTION: Close issue #633
#665
The council may report vote totals
github: https://
plh: Allowing the Council to report votes
plh: if there is a vote, AB decided not to impose whether to report or not the vote totals
fantasai: Individual positions cannot be reported, but the vote totals can be
florian: Minority report still exists (just can't be signed)
jeff: Pull request strikes out "must not report individual votes"
… maybe forbidden by the next line?
florian: That's how I read it
… I think it was redundant previously
… I can also keep the "must not report individual votes"
jeff: agree implied, but whole thing is confused
… but what about minority report?
florian: It states an opinion, but not who states it
jeff: I think you're correct it's handled by the next line...
… maybe [wording tweak]
fantasai: My suggestion is s/point/position/
florian: suggestion taking the PR with that change
<TallTed> +1 position
<jeff> +1 Elika
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 665 with s/point/position/
RESOLUTION: Close issue 605
Director-free [continuation to completion]
github: https://
#646
Replace the role of the Director in concluding AC Review
github: https://
florian: Old process relied on Director here
… first there was AC review
… then Director decides to do something after the review
… There's no actual linkage between the results of the review and what the Director does
… You'd expect that Director would try to reflect consensus, but this was not required
florian: There was also issue that Director could make editorial changes without even announcing the changes
… sure, reasonable to change; but shouldn't be allowed to change it secretly
florian: So now if go through AC Review and AC says yes, expected to adopt
… if objections, goes to Council ...
… and added allowances for edits, with appropriate notifications etc.
florian: basically encodes existing practice, which is important now that we don't have a Director
plh: Do we have a link to the guidebook?
florian: Various places, but not here specifically
plh: When adopting proposal with substantial changes [reads]
… we do have specific mailing lists that we copy
… maybe worth adding a link to the proper subpart of the guide?
florian: I think we could do that in a separate PR
… this has been up for review for awhile, let's merge and then do tweaks
plh: fair enough
plh: Any objection to merge 646?
florian: btw, while dsinger isn't here today, he was with us when we wrote this, and is in support
<TallTed> +1 merge
plh: I don't hear anyone asking to wait or raising objections, so shall we resolve?
<florian> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge 646
<cwilso> +1
Remove the Director
github: https://
plh: So finally, after merging all the PRs from last two weeks, finally remove the definition of the Director!
plh: after that if you find the word Director, we still have a bug :)
jeff: 3.2.1 has a concept of Director's Decision
… and 5.1 also have a Director Decision
<florian> https://
[some confusion over which version of the document we're looking at]
See https://
plh: btw, can we redirect from director-free branch to the ED when we're all merged?
florian: sure I'll try to do something appropriate there
florian: After merging this PR, we have no instances of the Director in the document
<cwilso> +1
plh: Ok, let's merge, and if you find any instances of Director in the Process that's a bug
RESOLUTION: Merge 644
Clarify expectations about FO mitigations
github: https://
#659
Clarify expectations about FO mitigations
github: https://
florian: Last time we did accept PR as part of DF about FO mitigations
… we were happy with the substance of it, but during discussion noted some editorial improvements
… I tried to make them
… for the ppl who reviewed this, have not found problems with this PR
… but while reviewing this, it made Nigel notice that something else wasn't clear
… so might have some text from last year that needs improvement
… so I think that needs follow-up, but this PR does the job of clarifying things correctly
plh: anyone need more time?
<fantasai> +1 to merging
RESOLUTION: Merge 659
ACTION: florian to open up separate issue for Nigel's comments
Legal Entity Transition
plh: wseltzer realized we still have instances of Host and Host Institution in the Process
… so she sent a PR to remove those
florian: I also had edits to do the exact same thing and made a PR
… so when I pointed that, wseltzer closed hers and approved mine
jeff: I think we hope that the oversight by BoD is where we hope to land
… but we haven't finished partner negotiations
… so ... this is what it should be
… but I wonder if we can hold this until we sign Partner Agreements?
… Even at MIT, we have WAI people remaining at MIT
plh: Not sure I understand, it's not about salaries
florian: If you expand the text above the PR, gives of examples of information that is oversight by Hosts, will be BoD
… interesting question from Jeff
… Could argue that it's indirect oversight, if it goes through a Partner
… Wendy was fine
fantasai: [stuff]
jeff: We could say that Team oversight is job of BoD
fantasai: A few more instances of BoD in the document, should be cross-linked
florian: Something not changed by PR, and should be considered (is filed separately)
… is MOUs
… By rereading the MOU thing, it made me and a few others realize that we probably want to think about whether oversight for MOUs is with Board, with AC, with both, how do they interact
… but there is a separate issue for that
… (this is in reference to nearby text)
https://
florian: I didn't quite get the exact wording for jeff's proposal
jeff: Something like Team oversight is provided by the Board and is not subject to Process
florian: Can we say "Team oversight, budgeting, and other business decisions" to give some examples without being too vague?
jeff: I'm ok with that
plh: Florian, want to take an action to edit?
florian: I'd be happy to take the requested edits and merge, or can bring back to the next call if you feel necessary (but I don't )
plh: any objections?
PROPOSED: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking
jeff: Not on first part about Team being part of Bod, but on the second changing the definition of MOU
… want to share some discomfort
… I had hoped this whole thing about MOU, could delay that for a few months or years for the Board and the AB and Process to figure out who owns MOUs
… but I just realized, that the literal interpretation of text (both old and new)
… means that the Partner Agreements are MOUs, and subject to AC review
florian: I share your discomfort, and that's why I filed 670
… but as you note, this is relevant to both old and new text
… so [missed]
fantasai: why not replace "Host" with "Partner" here? (not that 670 shouldn't also be addressed)
jeff: Do the Partner Agreements need to go through AC Review?
fantasai: So I think jeff is right, and we should instead of dropping the text about the Hosts, replace it with text about agreements with the Partners
plh: would that work?
jeff: I think that's fine
… I'm less concerned about the Process document and more about the Partner agreement
… I think fantasai's idea is elegant way to address the Partner Agreements
… I think it might be interesting if the AB can rule that in the current Process document, that the Partner Agreements are agreements between Hosts under the current Process
… which avoids them being subject to the Process's AC Review this year
florian: I want to agree with Jeff and go further
… fantasai's proposal is interesting, but won't help with upcoming Partner Agreements
… it'll only affect next year
… current Process says agreement between W3C and Hosts is not an MOU, and they will be signed with the current Hosts
… not a Hosting Agreement, but it's an agreement with the Host
<cwilso> +1
florian: so it's not an MOU, and doesn't need AC Review
florian: If we insert Partner here, need a definition
… so either need to define it here, or normatively reference the Bylaws
… I would like to keep the coupling light
… so I wouldn't want to jump into fantasai's suggestion right now
plh: I think the Partner Agreements are outside the scope of the Process
… this section was about MOUs that have impacts on technical work
… that's why we want them to have AC Review
… Partner Agreements is really only a Board-level thing
… to me it's outside the scope
<plh> fantasai: it's worth making it clear that partner agreements are outside the scope
<florian> fantasai: I think it's worth making that fix, so that we're clear for next that Partner agreements are not in scope just like host agreements weren't
<plh> ... I'm not concerned about the reference to Partner
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to agree with PLH
jeff: I like plh's observation, completely correct, and maybe don't need to make any change
… first line of the section, the CEO may negotiate an MOU
… so this whole section is about agreements negotiated by the Director/CEO
… not about agreements negotiated by the Board
… so we don't need to worry about that
plh: I heard fantasai want to include a mention of Partners, florian saying he doesn't want it, and jeff said he's fine as-is because already out of scope
florian: wseltzer approved this PR
plh: fantasai, can you live with it?
fantasai: yeah, can file follow-up
RESOLUTION: Merge 658 with simplified Board responsibilities wording (above) and more cross-linking
Issues to Close
florian: This is a whole pile of issues, a bunch of them dsinger, fantasai, and me confirmed that they're addressed by the things we've merged
… so by my read, all these things can be closed
… there's a couple that had subtopics which should be filed separately, and were filed separatley
… but by my read we can close all of this
… so when we ask ppl to review, they will not need to read stale issues
fantasai: would prefer to close them all, the've been on the agenda for like a month, and each have a comment sumarizing the status and saying why it's fine to close, staying without push back
florian: I think we can close without prejudice -- if anyone thinks we should reopen, can reopen
plh: Any objection to closing all the issues in the first set, or do ppl want more time?
RESOLUTION: Close all issues addressed by adopting Director-free/Council PRs
plh: Second one is not Director-free, it's about substantive changes to charters etc.
… any objections to closing that issue as well?
RESOLUTION: Close issue 28
Next Steps
<plh> fantasai: I suggest that we settle the pull requests and send the process to the AB to review for Director-Free
<florian> fantasai: my suggestion for next steps is that we settle the PR and give florian time to clean up, then send to AB for review.
<plh> ... and send it to AC informal review
<florian> fantasai: also maybe sent to AC for review, (not final review)
plh: so start informal review, but not formal review
jeff: I think it might also be interesting, as a courtesy, for the chairs to send a copy to the Director
… I suspect he will break out the champagne, but seems right thing to do
plh: I don't think we need to send to BoD
jeff: No
jeff: It will be hard to keep the firewall, we should do what we can
florian: I support doing this, I want a little bit of time to make sure I merged everything correctly
… also want to make the Changes section up to date
… so just needs a few days
… so give me a few days to clean things up
fantasai: I can work on the draft to the AC
… can send to Jeff for review, anyone else?
plh: ac-member or ac-forum?
florian: It's informal, so ac-forum
plh: I'll check with Comm
florian: It's not about a vote, it's about making noise
plh: so then fantasai and I need to discuss what we do in 2 weeks
plh: also CC Process CG
ACTION: florian to finalize edits and Changes list
ACTION: fantasai to draft and send informal review announcements to ac-forum, w3process, AB, and Director
[informal chatter about finishing the job]
[informal chatter about scheduling]
Scheduling
plh: propose to move back to Wednesday slot, now that GovTF is closed
… I'll post to w3process
<plh> fantasai, please add the TAG on the list of informal reviewiers