14:01:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:02:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/28-w3process-irc
14:02:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
14:03:08 <plh> present+
14:03:09 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: w3process CG -- 2023-06-28 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a479f996-24f7-4249-b780-c731ea6e9d9f/20230222T070000
14:03:29 <TallTed> present+
14:04:09 <Param> Param has joined #w3process
14:04:19 <plh> present+
14:04:23 <florian> present+
14:04:24 <plh> present+ Florian
14:04:29 <plh> present+ Josh
14:04:45 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:04:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/28-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
14:04:57 <TallTed> fantasai -- see https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a479f996-24f7-4249-b780-c731ea6e9d9f/20230222T070000
14:05:36 <TallTed> s|fantasai -- see https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a479f996-24f7-4249-b780-c731ea6e9d9f/20230222T070000|fantasai -- see https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a479f996-24f7-4249-b780-c731ea6e9d9f/20230222T070000|
14:05:58 <plh> present+ Param
14:06:04 <plh> present+ fantasai
14:07:13 <fantasai> scribenick: fantasai
14:07:17 <fantasai> Topic: Introductions
14:07:36 <fantasai> plh: Philippe Le Hégaret, W3C Team, co-chair of Process CG
14:07:55 <fantasai> fantasai: Elika Etemad, Invited Expert -> Apple
14:08:17 <Param> Congratulations Elika!
14:09:48 <fantasai> TallTed: Working for Opening Software since 2000, many groups since 2002, involving linked data / RDF /etc, I'm probably involved
14:09:53 <fantasai> ... I do a lot of nitpicking on PRs
14:10:03 <fantasai> plh: thanks fo ryour nitpicking, much appreciated
14:10:05 <fantasai> fantasai: +1
14:10:20 <fantasai> joshco: Josh Cohen, random community person, from ?? and previously IETF
14:10:42 <fantasai> florian: Florian, French living in Japan, Invited Expert primarily CSSWG and also a bit i18nWG
14:10:53 <fantasai> ... also Advisory Board (AB) member and liaison to W3C Board
14:11:12 <TallTed> s/Opening Software since 2000, many groups/OpenLink Software since 2000, many W3 groups/
14:11:43 <fantasai> baram: [missed name], making accessible applications, most recently life insurance company
14:11:56 <fantasai> ... all lifecycles of software development
14:12:06 <fantasai> ... role here is education of importance of accessibility
14:12:18 <fantasai> ... recently senior at IEEE, this is my first time in this group
14:12:33 <fantasai> plh: Thanks, fantasai, for actually sending an agenda (unlike your other co-chair...)
14:12:38 <plh> Topic: Candidates for a possible 2023.1 release
14:13:04 <fantasai> plh: When we talked about commentary from the AC during AC review of previous process
14:13:25 <fantasai> ... there were a few substantive changes that we asked the Director to consider
14:13:49 <fantasai> ... and Director declined to do at the last minute, because concerned about possible controversy
14:13:58 <fantasai> ... idea was that some of these changes, we might need before end of the year
14:14:06 <fantasai> ... primarily motivated by participation in the TAG
14:14:15 <fantasai> ... There was a request to increase the number of the TAG
14:14:35 <fantasai> ... there is an election for the TAG at the end of the year; we need to know by November how many seats would be available
14:14:44 <fantasai> ... so that would be one of our motivations to move fast
14:14:57 <florian> q?
14:14:59 <florian> q+
14:15:04 <plh> ack florian
14:15:11 <fantasai> florian: That's basically question, there are a few things to consider:
14:15:14 <fantasai> ... 1. do nothing
14:15:20 <fantasai> ... 2. do only TAG size increase
14:15:28 <fantasai> ... 3. do all three changes considered
14:15:35 <fantasai> ... 4. also do editorial fixes
14:15:43 <fantasai> ... my recommendation would be to do TAG change only
14:15:43 <plh> --> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls Pull requests
14:15:53 <fantasai> ... I think throwing anything else into cycle would slow things down
14:16:05 <fantasai> ... so if we want to do a quick cycle before the election and have as narrow as possible of a scope
14:16:21 <fantasai> plh: So I think we are considering 3 pull requests (not necessary to take as-is)
14:16:58 <fantasai> plh: #761, #760, #733
14:17:05 <florian> q+
14:17:15 <plh> ack florian
14:17:17 <fantasai> plh: I think 733 is hardest
14:17:36 <fantasai> florian: I think the opposite, a change in number of seats on TAG, whether we want it is interesting, but if we decide we want it
14:17:49 <fantasai> ... then doing it is very simple
14:17:54 <fantasai> ... the other two are more open-ended
14:18:04 <fantasai> plh: In the reaction that I've seen, e.g. from mnot
14:18:28 <fantasai> ... some uneasiness in increasing the number of the TAG
14:18:59 <fantasai> plh: One of concerned is balance, in Council we have TAG + AB
14:19:11 <fantasai> ... and Team appoints to the TAG after elections
14:19:23 <fantasai> ... with approval of 2/3 of TAG and AB
14:19:39 <fantasai> ... nominated seats was to improve diversity (of various axes)
14:20:05 <fantasai> plh: Now that we approved Process, we have consecutive term limits
14:20:21 <fantasai> ... do we count from the past? or do we start counting when the Process was adopted?
14:20:37 <fantasai> ... my thinking was we start counting in the past
14:20:42 <plh> ack fantasai
14:21:04 <florian> q+
14:21:04 <plh> fantasai: we would start counting from the day the process came into effect
14:21:11 <plh> ... that's my recollection
14:21:33 <joshco> "grandfather" clause
14:21:46 <joshco> or "grandmother"
14:21:58 <plh> ack florian
14:22:00 <fantasai> ... I'm pretty sure that was our plan
14:22:10 <fantasai> florian: I agree with fantasai, though I'm not sure where the minutes are
14:22:29 <fantasai> florian: I've also heard from the people concerned that they are thinking to go into election ahead of time
14:22:37 <fantasai> ... which is another reason to increase elected seats
14:22:42 <fantasai> ... because elected seats are already a crowded field
14:22:50 <fantasai> ... this makes the transition harder
14:23:09 <fantasai> ... so giving some breathing room so that they can run into an election without feeling like good people, possibly themselves, will lose just because not enough seats, would help
14:23:24 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #w3process
14:23:25 <fantasai> plh: To be clear, the two people under question here are the co-chairs of the TAG
14:23:48 <joshco> +q
14:23:49 <fantasai> ... Team has been re-appointing them consecutively
14:24:03 <fantasai> ... though I agree it would be good if they run for election
14:24:04 <plh> ack josh
14:24:22 <fantasai> joshco: so 2 consecutive terms, so if necessary they can take a year off and be nominated again?
14:24:28 <fantasai> plh: not like US president
14:24:40 <fantasai> ... can run for election
14:24:44 <fantasai> florian: or sit one out
14:25:06 <fantasai> plh: Underlying goal of Team is to address diversity and fill the gaps we have in the TAG
14:25:12 <fantasai> (in expertise, etc.)
14:25:32 <fantasai> joshco: So the point of the Team nomination is diversity? Is the assumption that marginalized communities can't win election?
14:25:35 <fantasai> florian: not quite it
14:25:42 <fantasai> ... there are many facets, marginalized communities is only one
14:25:55 <fantasai> ... but TAG specifically has a broad technical role for which we think it's important that every technical aspect is represent
14:25:55 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#TAG-appointments 3.3.3.4. Technical Architecture Group Appointments
14:26:08 <plh> [[
14:26:09 <plh> The Team should use its appointments to support a diverse and well-balanced TAG, including diversity of technical background, knowledge, and skill sets.
14:26:10 <plh> ]]
14:26:18 <fantasai> ... so if we miss important communities in terms of individual characteristics, that is indeed an aspect of diversity to consider
14:26:40 <fantasai> ... but also, consider e.g. "oh, this TAG has nobody who knows about security", or "we have no expertise in rendering"
14:26:49 <fantasai> ... or we "oh, we have nobody with skills to chair"
14:26:54 <fantasai> ... need to fill the gaps
14:27:06 <fantasai> ... that's why we moved appointment to after election rather than before, so we can look and see what's missing
14:27:41 <fantasai> joshco: It's a bit weird for a group to appoint its own...
14:27:56 <fantasai> florian: There was some consideration of that, and we added some guardrails, e.g. AB has to ratify also
14:28:03 <fantasai> ... but existance of appointment isn't new
14:28:09 <fantasai> ... what we're changing is the timing and constraints
14:28:16 <fantasai> ... and also now we're discussing adding people
14:28:31 <fantasai> ... that suggestion came so late in the cycle that the Director felt it was too late to take it in
14:28:50 <fantasai> florian: Since we previously thought it's a good idea, then it's probably still a good idea
14:29:02 <fantasai> ... but if we wait until next cycle, then we miss the next election
14:29:15 <fantasai> joshco: The decision to do Director-free, was that in a different body than this?
14:29:21 <fantasai> ... and Process CG has a mandate to figure that out?
14:29:30 <fantasai> florian: Yes. The AB is in charge of evolving the Process
14:29:41 <fantasai> ... but in order to broader participation
14:29:52 <fantasai> ... decided to have work done in CG
14:29:55 <fantasai> ... but the AB has oversight
14:30:11 <fantasai> ... However in the end the AB doesn't decide, the membership at large votes through AC, but AB sets the direction
14:30:21 <fantasai> joshco: So this question of whether to expand elected/appointed seats
14:30:28 <fantasai> ... should that have a decision from AB?
14:30:38 <fantasai> fantasai: The AB already resolved to make this change
14:31:00 <fantasai> joshco: so membership decided we want this, and this group figures out how to do it
14:31:15 <fantasai> florian: There's a twist, because the comment came in right at the end of approving Process 2023
14:31:23 <fantasai> ... AB's suggestion was to fold it in
14:31:39 <fantasai> ... so in the past; but Director didn't approve
14:31:47 <fantasai> ... so now we need to consider for the future
14:31:57 <fantasai> ... AB will probably review in August
14:32:11 <fantasai> florian: Our job is to say if there's anything else we need to fold in...
14:32:15 <fantasai> plh: [outlines timeline]
14:32:34 <fantasai> ... Terms start Feb 1 2024, but election season starts in mid-October
14:32:44 <fantasai> ... so we would need the new Process to get adopted October 1st
14:32:51 <fantasai> ... which means AC review needs to finish mid-September
14:32:58 <fantasai> ... so we need to start mid-August the AC Review of 2023.1
14:33:04 <fantasai> ... so we have a month and a half to come up with that
14:33:19 <florian> q+
14:33:25 <fantasai> ... my recommendation is we propose new Process to AC before mid-August
14:33:34 <fantasai> ... we discussed the three PRs in the past and were supportive
14:33:41 <fantasai> ... so that would be the only way to get it done in time
14:33:43 <plh> ack florian
14:33:54 <fantasai> florian: I agree with you, except I would only take the one PR
14:34:03 <fantasai> ... since we can do the other 2, even if we don't land them
14:34:11 <fantasai> ... it makes the rules mandatory, but we could do them voluntarily
14:34:25 <fantasai> ... I want to reduce the topics about which there might be objections
14:34:33 <fantasai> ... so smallest change possible seems advisable
14:34:39 <plh> ack fantasai
14:34:50 <plh> fantasai: +1 to limit the scope
14:35:11 <joshco> +q
14:35:39 <fantasai> ... if we increase the scope, then people might ask for more things to be addressed
14:35:40 <plh> ack josh
14:35:47 <fantasai> ... though I'm ok to add some simple editorial fixes
14:36:00 <fantasai> plh: Agree. Nothing complicated, or that people might say "maybe that's substantive, unclear"
14:36:08 <fantasai> joshco: Yeah, don't want to say it's open season
14:36:19 <fantasai> ... so be specific and say "this is the only thing we're going to do"
14:36:29 <florian> q+
14:36:32 <fantasai> ... want to be able to say in a binary and non-personal way, this is the only thing we're doing
14:36:35 <plh> ack florian
14:36:52 <fantasai> florian: So I suggest an action item on the editors to prepare all the material
14:36:59 <fantasai> ... e.g. changelog, description of what it is, etc.
14:37:10 <fantasai> ... so we can go to the AB meeting and ask if we should launch the whole review
14:37:18 <fantasai> ... so we don't have to start in mid-August
14:37:27 <fantasai> plh: would be more comfortable if we had +1 from Chris/Tzviya
14:37:36 <fantasai> florian: We can check with them, and if they think it's reasonable, can prepare
14:37:54 <fantasai> ... next virtual call is July 6th, but I will miss them
14:37:56 <fantasai> ... don't know agenda
14:38:05 <fantasai> plh: How about I'll call their attention to this, and secure their +1
14:38:11 <fantasai> ... if they have a -1 it would be good to know!
14:38:35 <fantasai> plh: but I believe the resolution is to fold 733 into 2023.1
14:38:43 <fantasai> florian: Recommend to AB that we do the .1 release with that and that only
14:38:46 <fantasai> -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-05-24-doc.html#tag-size
14:39:34 <fantasai> plh: Anything else on Process 2023.1
14:39:36 <plh> Topic: Process 2024
14:39:44 <fantasai> s/Topic: Process 2024//
14:40:36 <fantasai> PROPOSED: Propose Process 2023.1 to include only PR 733 and kick off AC Review no later than mid-August, spanning TPAC
14:41:19 <fantasai> plh: I think it would be better to end before or during TPAC, so that if someone FOs, we can discuss during TPAC
14:41:40 <fantasai> ... if we can finish sooner, more power to us
14:41:52 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Propose Process 2023.1 to include only PR 733 and kick off AC Review no later than mid-August
14:41:55 <fantasai> Topic: Process 2024
14:42:06 <florian> q+
14:42:12 <fantasai> plh: What do we want to do for Process 2024?
14:42:15 <plh> ack florian
14:42:28 <fantasai> florian: There's a pile of issues to pick from what we can deal with
14:42:36 <fantasai> ... but wrt topics to priorities, I have 3:
14:42:59 <fantasai> ... 1. Chartering. Chartering process is very free and open
14:43:10 <fantasai> ... though we have many practices around it
14:43:25 <fantasai> ... who chairs chartering, whether there's a DoC, none of this is formalized
14:43:34 <fantasai> ... I think it would be good to be clear on these things
14:44:01 <fantasai> ... I know that there's some discussion in the community that for a member-led Consortium, the chartering phase may be insufficiently Member-controlled ... unclear what to do about it, but that's an area
14:44:17 <fantasai> ... 2. I heard many times that changes for REC maintenance in 2020 were too heavy and too complicated
14:44:29 <fantasai> ... all of the complication is there for a reason
14:44:37 <fantasai> ... but we should have another look and see if there's any way we can improve
14:44:47 <fantasai> ... it's possible we can't simplify, but worth a look
14:45:04 <fantasai> ... 3. idk if Process or not, but in P2020, a fastpath was introduced for publications
14:45:22 <plh> q+
14:45:24 <fantasai> ... and it seems to me this path is underused
14:45:40 <fantasai> ... Is it a problem with Process, or is Process fine and we need tooling, or is it unnecessary?
14:45:57 <fantasai> ... So should we improve tooling or remove this facility or what?
14:46:23 <fantasai> plh: On chartering, I fully agree. Right now plh has veto power on sending charters to AC
14:46:26 <fantasai> ... we need to figure out how to fix that
14:46:35 <fantasai> ... although in practice it's more complicate
14:46:46 <fantasai> ... but I have two groups that want to be chartered and aren't yet
14:47:09 <fantasai> ... one is the ? CG came with a proposed charter, and Team is blocking because they believe the charter is too vague or too open-ended
14:47:13 <fantasai> ... so asking for it to be clarified
14:47:35 <fantasai> ... other case is DID WG charter, where one member of that group objected to a chair decision, and has been asking for an appeal of the decision
14:47:41 <fantasai> ... looking into it until recently
14:47:48 <fantasai> ... so 2 charters not sent to AC by Team for two different reasons
14:48:11 <fantasai> ... I'm not saying Team is wrong here, but the room for debate is not clear (even though most of these conversations are happening in GH)
14:48:21 <fantasai> plh: REC maintenance, too heavy too complicated, I agree
14:48:32 <fantasai> ... every time I explain to WG how ti works, they look at me sadly
14:48:35 <fantasai> ... part of it is tooling
14:48:55 <fantasai> ... for legal reasons, we can't let them modify the actual text of the spec
14:49:06 <fantasai> ... and we don't have good tooling to make this easy
14:49:27 <fantasai> ... We need to make lawyers and AC happy by not changing normative text without normative review
14:49:32 <fantasai> plh: Wrt fastpath, the tooling was never done
14:49:42 <fantasai> ... but on the other hand, I haven't heard any groups complaining
14:50:03 <fantasai> ... very often we reject a publication it's because horizontal review wasn't properly done
14:50:16 <fantasai> ... e.g. new a11y section in the spec, and no proof that the AP group looked at it
14:50:24 <fantasai> ... so I don't think it's hurting in practice
14:50:33 <fantasai> ... we're pretty good at dealing with transition requests as they come in now
14:50:44 <fantasai> plh: 4th point, you didn't mention the frontier between incubation and standardization
14:50:48 <fantasai> ... 4 I's question is big one
14:50:57 <fantasai> ... and that's partly what's blocking on ??? WG charter
14:51:08 <fantasai> ... we want to have a group on privacy, but don't know how to move forward
14:51:17 <tzviya> q+ to ask about simplification
14:51:18 <fantasai> ... and they want a blank check to define their own scope
14:51:25 <fantasai> ... and team believes that AC would not allow for this
14:51:29 <fantasai> ... while the WG would really like to do that
14:51:30 <plh> ack plh
14:51:32 <plh> ack fantasai
14:51:57 <florian> fantasai: I think the reason we haven't used the fast path is both lack of tooling and because the normal path has got faster
14:52:03 <florian> fantasai: we might not need it anymore
14:52:09 <plh> --> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues Transition requests
14:52:30 <fantasai> plh: People are starting to understand how transitions happen, and starting to comment on them
14:52:38 <plh> ack tzviya
14:52:38 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about simplification
14:52:46 <fantasai> tzviya: Wrt what to work on in P2024, I don't think this will be easy
14:52:53 <fantasai> ... but people say Process is too long and too complicated
14:53:00 <fantasai> ... nobody wants to even touch it
14:53:08 <fantasai> ... I think wendyreid suggested an overhaul
14:53:32 <fantasai> ... but when Wendy was doing a transition, she had to read the process 3 times to consider the possibilities for the standard
14:53:35 <fantasai> ... that's a problem
14:53:37 <fantasai> ... she had some proposals
14:53:59 <fantasai> florian: There is a general length problem, but Wendy was specifically talking about #2, REC maintenance
14:54:10 <fantasai> ... it's very complicated. We should try to do something about it, but I don't know what
14:54:16 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/429
14:54:25 <fantasai> plh: Problem is chairs only look at this at best once a year
14:54:29 <fantasai> ... and it's a long list
14:54:42 <fantasai> ... so every time they do a transition request, hard to remember what's involved
14:54:53 <fantasai> ... so our standards have been getting higher about what we want from the standard
14:55:06 <fantasai> ... e.g. we got an FO against an implementation report, because it wasn't explicit enough
14:55:19 <fantasai> ... so I have a long list of recommendations for implementationr reports
14:55:28 <fantasai> ... but this will increase requirements, and make transitions harder
14:55:38 <fantasai> florian: So in general, if we find an opportunity for simplification
14:55:54 <fantasai> ... a couple years ago there was a trend by Wendy Seltzer to shorten (by lenght)
14:56:03 <fantasai> ... but just shortening isn't the goal imho
14:56:15 <fantasai> ... making shorter and harder to understand, not an improvement
14:56:42 <fantasai> plh: Process is one single document, but it covers everything about Consortium. Defines groups, defines liaisons, defines REC track, etc.
14:56:48 <fantasai> florian: Yes, though in P2021, we did refactor it
14:56:49 <tzviya> s/https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/429//
14:56:53 <fantasai> ... so each chapter is largely self-contained
14:57:13 <fantasai> ... Not quite CSS modularization with different documents, but now each chapter is more self-contained
14:57:25 <fantasai> tzviya: yes, it's chunks, but individual sections are incomprehensible
14:57:32 <fantasai> ... trying to find the issue wendy filed
14:57:53 <fantasai> ... but ppl not involved in Process, it's impenetrable
14:57:54 <joshco> q+
14:57:59 <fantasai> ... nobody reads unless they have to
14:58:08 <fantasai> florian: I don't disagree, but it's also not actionable
14:58:28 <plh> ack joshco
14:58:54 <fantasai> joshco: I agree. I'm new to W3C, and I founded the Process community in DMTF
14:59:15 <fantasai> ... org was evolving, becoming more international, a lot of process was not really documented, and working on easy to read document
14:59:31 <fantasai> ... but trying to read the document here, a lot of time if walls of text/code that's hard to epnetrate
14:59:36 <fantasai> ... some can be helped by formatting
14:59:51 <fantasai> ... e.g. list the requirement, and then separate paragraph for explanatory text
15:00:13 <fantasai> ... in different sections, you have buried a normative rule in a paragraph, and then go into edge cases in the next paragraph
15:00:20 <fantasai> ... but reorganizing the text a bit and reformatting...
15:00:38 <fantasai> ... ppl who are new will skim the document to find the piece they're looking for, and will be helped by framework of high-level points
15:00:41 <fantasai> ... and then go deeper
15:01:27 <fantasai> ... way it's formatted now, the minutiae are mixed in with the important points
15:02:08 <florian> q+
15:02:14 <fantasai> plh: Even though Wendy didn't submit an AC review comment, I did hear from people that Process is getting more complex
15:02:18 <fantasai> ... it's getting super complicated
15:02:23 <fantasai> ... our trend is to make more complicated
15:02:30 <fantasai> ... because trying to address every loophole
15:02:39 <plh> ack florian
15:02:39 <fantasai> ... and Director-Free really added a lot
15:02:46 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
15:03:03 <fantasai> florian: One of the sections that has worst usefulness to complexity ration is Member Submission section
15:03:04 <fantasai> ... it's used increasingly infrequently, and it's convoluted
15:03:11 <fantasai> ... we could possibly drop the whole thing
15:03:21 <fantasai> tzviya: not the section ppl are looking at
15:03:30 <fantasai> ... focus on the progressing a spec section
15:03:40 <fantasai> plh: OK, so that's a start for P2024
15:03:44 <fantasai> ... we do have a lot of open issues
15:03:50 <fantasai> ... I guess we need to do a triage session?
15:03:59 <fantasai> florian: This is big goals, we'll catch a bunch of small things too
15:04:15 <fantasai> ... and we'll start receiving more issues about Councils as we run more of them
15:04:35 <fantasai> Topic: End
15:04:46 <fantasai> plh: Next meeting is 12th, do we want to keep it or cancel? I'll be away
15:07:07 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
15:25:06 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
15:34:25 <tzviya> @fantasai and @plh here is wendy's issue https://github.com/W3C/w3process/issues/700
16:24:42 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #w3process
16:49:39 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #w3process
16:51:06 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #w3process
16:58:57 <tantek> tantek has joined #w3process
17:31:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #w3process
17:55:42 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
18:40:45 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
19:18:38 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:18:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/28-w3process-minutes.html plh
20:08:41 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process