Meeting minutes
Timeline
plh: Looking at maybe 4 weeks from now deciding to send Process to AB
… so ideally would merge last PR in 2 weeks?
… and would give everyone 2 weeks advance notice to review
… and then we'd send it to AB, earliest would be mid-February
florian: I think that's not too off and we can try for that
… but I think we might run into things and delay a meeting or two
… but roughly should aim for what you're saying
plh: If we find editorial issues, I don't think we should block on that to send to AB
… only if we have something substantive we need to discuss
… also expect the AB, once they start reviewing Process, they will find issues as well
… we'll keep working on it and squeeze issues
florian: Kindof agree, but also I think we should raise expectation in AB
… when we send it to AB, it's not time to start, it's time to finish
… This is not a "please start", this is a "please finish"
plh: Don't control the AB..
… did ask the candidates if they read the Process, to prompt their engagement
cwilso: I think the special election notwithstanding
… Looking at the ppl currently remaining on the AB
… Process CG already sent a review request
… do that again, with "we'll ask you to vote on this soon"
… Probably Tzviya and I are the only ones who will deep dive on it besides the editors
… So I'm not overly worried
… but suggest sending out to candidates
fantasai: We can send to AB for their review even if we didn't fix every single thing, we just send them a changelog of the few things remaining
… so after we're done with most things, we can send for their review
plh: Let's wait until at least the new candidates are elected
+1
cwilso: I should take this as an action item, to include in the "welcome to the AB" email
Introductions
Josh Cohen says hi
Josh: Used to work at MSFT for about 13 years
… I was the leader of the standards initiative for W?? management, which is what powershell uses
… Windows uses for ??? protocols
… Vice Chair of Board and process there, and lead for standardization at ISO JTC1
… Way back when I started my career in early 90s, in the HTTP WG
… Became a software engineer at Netscape working on proxy
… So always involved in standardization wherever I went
… Checking back into this world
… feel free to ask me any questions
cwilso: I'm the only one everyone knows! Josh and I used to work together
… Chris Wilson, work for Google, hang out in Process CG to move things along
florian: Florian Rivoal, independent consultant, working i nstandards particularly CSS
… member of Advisory Board, and co-editor of this Process document
… and I used to be at Opera
<plh> fantasai: [Elika introduces herself]
dsinger: Dave Singer, Apple
… used to chair Process CG and used to be on AB, but not anymore
… chair of the Board of Directors
… care about processes and stuff, working with W3C for 15-20 years now
TallTed: With ?? for 23 years, involved in W3C for about that long
… because I'm in the trenches, have a different perspective than others in this group, sometimes different perspective
… involved in RDF, linked data, identity management, etc.
palemieux: Pierre Anthony, co-chair Color CG, and editor of subtitling and captioning spec in Timed Text WG
plh: I'm Philippe Le Hegaret, other co-chair of Process CG
… part of W3C Staff, nowadays responsible for WGs, startegy, and other things in the Consortium
… we are always looking for new participants, anything I can do to help get you on board, ask me
… also happy to set up a separate time to chat
Pull Requests
Clarify CR review period
github: https://
github: https://
florian: We have some references to the "candidate recommendation review period"
… and it was not clear what this meant
… was it the entire time the spec is in CR, or was it the dedicated review period that is mentioned in the SOTD
… We previously concluded it's that specific reserved time period
… so the PR adds a definition there, and then cross-links to it
… so I think this is an uneventful PR based on discussion last time
+1 to merging
plh: Any objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #691
Closure of a Group
github: https://
florian: Addresses two issues
https://
https://
florian: This is about closure of a group
… used to be only Director can close
… changed to the Team
… Discussed making more balanced by allowing AB and TAG to close as well
… while we were discussing, Nigel noticed an earlier intended refactoring had modified the text beyond what we meant to modify
… Ability of Team/Director used to not only be rare in practice, but also was constrained under the situations it could happen in
… so the new PR restores the old text
… [summarizes PR]
… so i think the PR integrates all we have been saying in the related issues
… if it looks good, we can merge
+1 to merging
TallTed: minor fix in the PR
florian: hadn't seen, yes, should take that modification
plh: Objections to merging with the fix from TallTed ?
RESOLUTION: Merge #696 with the edit from TallTed
<cwilso> +1 to merging
Member-visible AC Appeals
github: https://
https://
florian: We wanted to add language to encourage members to share their appeal request with membership, not just the Team
… agreed on concept last time, but were blocked on specific phrasing
… because the process does not explicitly refer to AC Forum, it is abstract about how you are supposed to contact the AC
… so wanted to rephrase to make it clearer how to contact this
… solved this by having plh write a /Guide article, which gives an email template and says where to send it
<plh>
florian: so now the Process itself, we can just link to the Guide
<cwilso> +1 to merging
florian: and just say who you're supposed to contact, and point to /Guide for how
plh: Objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge #676
Issue Triage
plh: We have a bunch of issues we said we'd address in 2023 that are still open
… question I have here is, do we still want to address them or defer them?
… also if there's an issue not on the list we should add to the list
https://
plh: Will go through the list and ask if we need to keep or defer
plh: 670
fantasai: keep
florian: Not about DF, but related to LE, and need to clean it up
dsinger: only thing I think we should do now is to disentangle legal contracts from true memorandum of understanding
… "we understand you're doing this" and "we understand you're doing that"
… but contracts become a Board purview question
… right now MOU includes formal legal contracts
<plh>
dsinger: need some clean up
fantasai: We are just triaging, not solving the problem. We should address this for 2023
plh: 661, editorial
plh: 650
… I think this one stays on our list, don't think we've quite finished the conversation
cwilso: not sure we will finish it, but don't object to keeping on the list for now
plh: 580, goes along with 650, so keep it?
[yes]
plh: 574, we were waiting on Wendy?
fantasai: I can take it to PSIG
florian: I don't know that we have to solve it, but we should try
[florian summarizes the state]
plh: 560
fantasai: related to 580
plh: 522, I think not P2023
fantasai: defer
tzviya: this is, AB works on it for the next year
plh: 518
… why is this under the Process?
florian: interaction of Process and Patent Policy
… and Patent Policy doesn't have a repo. probably should defer
florian: Btw, we don't have a repo for Patent Policy
… the source for Patent Policy is on my computer and on my computer only
… would be nice to have a repo
dsinger: The lawyers don't really want a repo, or visible issues
florian: And they also told us it was impossible to revise the Patent Policy, but we did it
florian: but anyway that's an AB/PSIG topic
plh: 464
fantasai: it would be nice to solve, pretty straightforward
plh: 425
fantasai: defer
florian: defer
plh: defer
plh: 373
florian: if we solve it great, if not not a significant problem for this cycle
plh: Once we send to AC for review, we'll need to triage for 2024
plh: 328, I believe same bucket as 580 etc.
… so keep that one
plh: 281
florian: I thought we had solve this
… I'd need more than a minute because it's long, but I suspect we already solved it
… probably ready to close
plh: 167
… same bucket as 422, not for P2023, so let's defer
florian: agreed
plh: That's it for issues marked for P2023
… if you see any issue that *should* be marked for P2023, speak up
joshco: Deferring "define independent"?
… that means to 2024? or different group?
plh: for next release if it gets ready in time
… the Advisory Board has set this issue as a priority for this next cycle
… so in terms of expectations, we'll let the AB first have the conversations on that one
… be aware, btw, there was a TPAC breakout last year on this topic
… happy to send you minutes if you want
… but conclusion has been so far, AB needs to dive into it
… can't solve in CG ourselves
tzviya: we'll open a public discussion
florian: For all these issues we defer, it's just about this cycle of the process
… we're focused on removing the dependency of TimBL and adjusting for existing of the legal entity
… fold in anything that we can incidentally, but otherwise defer to next cycle
[discussion of tags]
[discussion of issue management]
florian: What remains complicated, and we may not solve it completely this cycle, is charter creation
plh: Right now W3C puts a lot of power on the Team to propose charters to the AC
… we need more checks and balances
… even though currently AC has to review, only check is formal objection
… that's the part that we need to look at
… as an aside, I'm looking into revamping a bit our strategy at at Team level
… and one of my goals has been how to involve the community a bit more
… Even though a lot of the work is in public, hard to find
[back to charter creation]
plh: multiple issues 650, 560, 580,
… some of this will go into Process, some into /Guide
… /Guide helps us document how we work without hard coding into a Process that is difficult to change
… /Guide is responsibility of the Team, but working with the Process CG
[discussion of work mechanics]
plh: Looks like we're done for today
… next meeting will be in 2 weeks
<florian> https://
<florian> https://
<plh> [adjourned]
Meeting closed.