06:32:34 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 06:32:38 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-w3process-irc 06:32:38 RRSAgent, do not leave 06:32:42 RRSAgent, make logs public 06:32:44 Meeting: Chartering at W3C 06:32:46 Chair: Florian Rivoal, Elika Etemad, Philippe Le Hegaret 06:32:48 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43 06:32:50 clear agenda 06:32:55 agenda+ Pick a scribe 06:32:55 agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy 06:33:00 agenda+ Goal of this session 06:33:02 agenda+ Discussion 06:33:04 agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues 06:33:24 Ian has left #w3process 07:06:47 Ian has joined #w3process 07:06:51 Ian has left #w3process 07:09:43 Ian has joined #w3process 07:09:45 Ian has left #w3process 07:16:52 dsinger has joined #w3process 07:24:31 dsinger has joined #w3process 07:26:18 present+ 07:28:18 tzviya has joined #w3process 07:31:10 cpn has joined #w3process 07:31:10 MichaelWilson has joined #w3process 07:32:15 zakim, agenda? 07:32:15 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 07:32:15 1. Pick a scribe [from Ian] 07:32:15 2. Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy [from Ian] 07:32:15 3. Goal of this session [from Ian] 07:32:15 4. Discussion [from Ian] 07:32:15 5. Next steps / where discussion continues [from Ian] 07:32:49 present+ Chris_Needham 07:34:10 dom__ has joined #w3process 07:34:34 nigel has joined #w3process 07:35:03 Present+ 07:35:18 zakim, take up next agendum 07:35:18 agendum 1 -- Pick a scribe -- taken up [from Ian] 07:35:22 Present+ Nigel_Megitt 07:35:37 present+ 07:36:05 present+ 07:36:09 present+ 07:36:09 present+ 07:36:17 anssik has joined #w3process 07:36:45 Present+ Anssi_Kostiainen 07:36:45 present+ 07:37:13 rgrant has joined #w3process 07:37:25 hongchan has joined #w3process 07:37:28 present+ 07:37:36 zakim, take up next agendum 07:37:36 agendum 2 -- Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy -- taken up [from Ian] 07:37:52 present+ 07:38:03 kaz has joined #w3process 07:38:08 present+ Kaz 07:38:21 scribenick: kaz 07:38:30 topic: Quick intro 07:38:34 Florian 07:38:36 Florian Rivoal, Invited Expert, Advisory Board, Process co-editor 07:38:42 PLH 07:39:02 Kaz 07:39:04 Chris Wilson 07:39:08 Nigel Megitt 07:39:22 @@@ 07:39:24 Igarashi 07:39:41 Michael Wilson, Google Chrome 07:39:52 s/Nigel Megitt/Nigel Megitt, BBC, co-chair TTWG, chair ADCG 07:39:55 s/Chris Wilson/Chris Wilson, Google Chrome and Advisory Board 07:40:11 Chris Needham, AC rep, Media WG co-chair, MEIG co-chair 07:40:14 Hongchan Choi, Google Chrome, Co-chair Audio WG 07:40:43 remote: 07:41:15 Sarven 07:41:16 Dom 07:41:21 Fantasai 07:41:25 seanturner has joined #w3process 07:41:30 Ryan 07:41:31 igarashi has joined #w3process 07:41:33 zakim, take up next agendum 07:41:33 agendum 3 -- Goal of this session -- taken up [from Ian] 07:41:34 Ryan Grant, AC rep for Digital Contract Design 07:41:36 Sean Turner (sn3rd) 07:41:41 present+ Tatusuya.Igarashi 07:41:43 <--- in room 07:41:45 s/Fantasai/Elika Etemad aka fantasai, CSSWG, Advisory Board, Process CG co-chair, Process co-editor 07:41:56 Anssi Kostiainen, DAS WG, WebML WG, Second Screen WG chair 07:42:09 jyasskin has joined #w3process 07:42:43 florian: how chartering works and doesn't work 07:42:46 Wolfgang has joined #w3process 07:42:55 ... process says Team pays attention 07:43:01 ... must tell to Membership 07:43:07 ... propose the Charter to the AC 07:43:11 ... and AC review 07:43:27 ... if no objections, the Charter is ready 07:43:40 ... Team is responsible to talk with various parties 07:44:06 ... possible proposals on tweaks 07:44:35 ... the basics is very simple, Team 07:44:40 s/, Team// 07:44:57 s/Sarven/Sarven Capadisli (Independent), Solid CG chair 07:45:06 ... but the detail is not really described well 07:45:21 plh: the guide we announce, etc. 07:45:31 Present+ ChrisL, MNot 07:45:41 ... we need to have horizontal reviews before AC review 07:45:47 ... but not part of the process 07:45:50 Mirja has joined #w3process 07:46:27 ... beyond the guide, if we have an existing group, what to do first is telling the Team Contact to work with the group to generate a new Charter 07:46:49 ... we have a repository called strategy 07:46:58 ... to manage the progress 07:47:12 ... but would say it's not easy to follow 07:47:26 ... sometimes it's hard to handle 07:47:39 -> https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html Guide page on chartering 07:48:03 ... e.g., a CG comes to us 07:48:19 ... but how to verify it is difficult 07:48:26 ... e.g., PAT CG 07:48:44 ... Solid CG 07:48:51 ... came to us with a proposed Charter 07:49:00 ... verifiable identity as well 07:49:24 ... we're finishing PAT proposal and sending the proposed Charter to AC 07:49:43 ... we have many existing CGs 07:50:05 ... sometimes say this group should become a WG 07:50:16 ... how to do it is a question 07:50:28 q+ 07:50:32 florian: down side is it's very flexible 07:50:42 ... the Team could propose a group too 07:50:54 ... majority or minority 07:51:04 ... would like to open the floor 07:51:18 s/propose a group too/proposal matching to or different from what was wanted, anything is possible/ 07:51:24 zakim, take up next agendum 07:51:24 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, florian 07:51:29 hober has joined #w3process 07:51:32 ... encourage to start with problems first 07:51:34 q? 07:51:34 q+ 07:51:35 present+ 07:51:39 present+ 07:51:42 scribenick: fantasai 07:51:44 q+ 07:51:54 ack anssik 07:51:56 AramZS has joined #w3process 07:51:58 anssik: Thanks for intro 07:52:05 present+ 07:52:08 ... wrt best practices for my WG for improving engagement in chartering process 07:52:12 ... I think some groups don't follow 07:52:25 ... initial charter is in GH repo, and we actively advertise this 07:52:27 seanturner has joined #w3process 07:52:36 ... try to make it as open as possible 07:52:41 ... helps acceptance in AC 07:52:54 ... idk if you have that as a best practice, but it's good 07:53:02 anssik: I have a question, you mentioned WASM WG 07:53:06 ... charter expired a long time agao 07:53:10 ... is there something we can learn from this? 07:53:22 q+ to answer on wasm charter 07:53:25 ... frustrated Members that WG charters expired 07:53:28 q? 07:53:47 plh: It was my failure that WASM wasn't rechartered properly 07:53:53 ack plh 07:53:53 plh, you wanted to answer on wasm charter 07:53:55 ... I lost the Team Contact, and became Team Contact for 7 monhts 07:53:58 ... and was too busy 07:54:00 ... have help now 07:54:03 q+ 07:54:05 q? 07:54:38 ... As long as we don't create a new legal entity, we should be fine 07:54:38 ... and I understand that there are concerns with this group 07:54:38 jyasskin: 3 fairly minor problems 07:54:38 ... 1. It's hard to find charters. Every group puts them in a different place. 07:54:41 ... There's no one place to find them. 07:54:51 ... 2. Privacy WG chartering has been spinning because people don't know what the right thing to do is 07:54:57 ... so waiting instead of picking something and moving forward 07:55:09 ... 3. With PATWG, there was an FO around living standards text in original charter 07:55:19 ... but some different wording around that charter in the template, which doesn't address FO 07:55:30 ... I don't think anyone went back to update the template after the FO to figure out the right text 07:55:45 ... Now that we've noticed text in template is wrong, should update it; should have happened already 07:55:54 ChrisL: I'm one of the maintainers of the template 07:56:08 ... Recently, was waiting for wording to be resolved 07:56:22 ... as I kept updating to match charter drafts, but that created a lot of churn 07:56:34 -> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html Charter Template 07:56:35 ... so I've been asked to slow down, make sure there's consensus before making changes to template 07:56:36 q? 07:57:02 jyasskin: Tantek raised objection, idk if he messaged that template should change 07:57:02 q+ to talk about charter template 07:57:14 q- 07:57:19 q+ to say WG and non-WG AC-reps who disagree are not engaged in a process of consensus 07:57:24 ack cpn 07:57:32 cpn: Folowing up on template issue, I've recently raised objections at AC Review stage 07:57:40 ... not substantial in terms of the work, but changes made in template 07:57:50 ... I think having more of a defined process around managing template sounds like a good thing 07:58:00 ... One of the objections was related to something that originated in PATCG 07:58:13 ... interesting listening to Sam talking about moving towards more community-driven chartering process 07:58:21 q+ 07:58:22 q+ to say that the charters should be handled in comparison to the state of the template at the time the group is chartered. It's fine to evolve quickly on the template I think, but it shouldn't happen at the expense of chartering process for groups. Also - would like more best practice charters. 07:58:23 ... I'd like to move as much of discussion around charters up front as possible 07:58:29 ... so objections can be resolved before final stage 07:58:38 ... I don't want to use AC Review FOs to resolve problems 07:58:49 q+ to ask about joint deliverables 07:58:53 ... wrt PATCG, there's still an unresolved objection, but the chairs have chosen not to reopen discussion 07:59:10 florian: One thing I've found uncomfortable in the past 07:59:14 q- 07:59:21 ... not necessarily when rechartering, but when initially charter 07:59:31 ... unclear who is chairing the chartering process vs proponent of an issue 07:59:43 ... e.g. I filed an issue, and they closed it and say "Nah, that's not what we're doing" 07:59:48 ... Unclear how this works 08:00:03 ... and by the time gets to AC Review, [missed] 08:00:28 rgrant: WG and non-WG AC Reps that don't find consensus are not engaged in a process of consensus 08:00:33 s/[missed]/the AC does not get to know that this is how comments were closed 08:00:40 ... when there are FOs, the matter is immediately sent to a Council 08:00:49 q+ 08:00:49 ... so I'm looking for a process of consensus somewhere 08:00:49 qq+ 08:00:59 ack florian 08:00:59 florian, you wanted to react to cpn 08:01:10 florian: to respond briefly, the normal practice is that before going to Council, the Team discusses with participants and tries to find consensus 08:01:26 ... but left to Team to determine if there's a path to consensus; if they don't believe, they can go directly to Council 08:01:31 q- 08:01:32 ... but first step *is* to seek consensus 08:01:33 ack florian 08:01:34 q- 08:01:35 q+ 08:01:39 s/step/step of handling FOs/ 08:01:41 ack rgrant 08:01:41 rgrant, you wanted to say WG and non-WG AC-reps who disagree are not engaged in a process of consensus 08:01:45 ack hober 08:02:07 Florian was describing https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#team-fo-mediation about the team mediating before going to the Council. 08:02:12 hober: Main consumers of charters are lawyers of large companies who are trying to figure out whether OK to join group or not 08:02:15 ... Risk assessment 08:02:33 ... What I hear from lawyers, the tighter and narrower the charter is scoped, the easier and faster it is to do that risk assessment 08:02:38 ... Sometimes those assesments take time 08:02:49 ... As an engineer, I get frustrated, because I want to join the group yesterday. 08:03:13 ... What I heard in the PATCG was, ppl are concerned that if they scope the PATWG charter too narrowly, they'll have to recharter 08:03:17 ... too annoying, don't want to do 08:03:24 ... I'm sympathetic to the concern, you want more wiggle room 08:03:41 ... but the more wiggle room you have, the harder it is for engineers at large companies to join the group in a timely manner 08:03:42 qq+ 08:03:43 q? 08:03:49 ... I'd like rechartering to be something we can do quickly, and cost is low 08:03:56 ... so that groups are more comfortable with a tighter charter 08:04:18 ack cwilso 08:04:18 cwilso, you wanted to react to hober 08:04:18 cwilso: It actually is. We have to be cautious as engineers at large companies, how much scope we're signing up to 08:04:18 [I wonder if this points to maybe different approaches to adopt for chartering/rechartering?] 08:04:24 ack AramZS 08:04:24 AramZS, you wanted to say that the charters should be handled in comparison to the state of the template at the time the group is chartered. It's fine to evolve quickly on the 08:04:24 ... harder for us to go convince lawyers 08:04:27 ... template I think, but it shouldn't happen at the expense of chartering process for groups. Also - would like more best practice charters. 08:04:43 AramZS: In terms of template discussion, don't think it's bad that template evolves, even if rapidly 08:04:50 ... only if it gets a problem when chartering 08:04:59 ... Template is template to build upon, not the only way 08:05:02 q+ to suggest evaluating rechartering shortcuts 08:05:13 ... would be good as ppl respond to feedback, building up 08:05:23 ... more difficulty of chartering if people are trying to [missed] 08:05:37 AramZS: Would also be better to get more best-practice charters 08:05:56 ... What goes well with lawyers? is a concept we don't quite understand 08:06:02 q+ chris 08:06:03 ... Some level of feedback ... 08:06:10 ack anssik 08:06:10 anssik, you wanted to ask about joint deliverables 08:06:15 anssik: Like to folow up on ? 08:06:26 ... I think we have a possible solution, discussing over last year 08:06:37 ... example: 2 WGs want to define 4-5 specs as joint deliverable 08:06:40 s/up on ?/up on what Tess and Chris said 08:06:41 s/?/scope creep of charters 08:06:49 ... I'd like to say that scope of some groups be large, in part for ?? reasons 08:07:05 s/people are trying to [missed]/people are trying to hit a moving target 08:07:29 ... I was following up on Tess and ? wrt broadly-scoped WGs 08:07:36 s/?/Chris/ 08:07:41 ... we have a concrete case of 2 WGs that want to take up substantial joint work around 4-5 specs 08:07:55 ... scope of these WGs, we want to split a bit, that's due to historical reasons 08:08:04 ... previously supergroup that adopted new work as came through incubation 08:08:37 ... we believe joint deliverable will be a good way to solve scope creep issue 08:08:37 ... but one blocker on our way is that joint deliverable as a concept isn't defined anywhere in W3C Process 08:08:37 ... which was surprise to me 08:08:45 ... that we don't have agreement or rules on how we would do this 08:08:59 ... I feel a bit bad, not able to deliver this agreement for joint work for my summer vacation 08:09:08 ... found out it took 10 years to come up with solution 08:09:22 ... would like to solve this problem, that joint deliverables might be a solution 08:09:27 s/come up/not come up 08:09:29 q? 08:09:42 ack csarven 08:09:53 sarven: Wrt how chairs are chosen 08:10:48 [audio cut] 08:11:09 ack nigel 08:11:20 nigel: My first point is, although it's the Team formally who need to prepare the charter 08:11:20 https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43#issuecomment-1711273031 08:11:20 Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568 08:11:27 ... as you described, Team worked with group 08:11:38 ... I think it's confusing, needs to be a person who takes lead and owns it 08:11:51 ... gathering views of people etc. 08:12:01 ... Over many years of rechartering, there was an expectation that chairs would prepare the charter 08:12:10 ... I think that situation has become less clear over time, needs to get more clear 08:12:20 ... Charter is a deliverable document, needs an owner, and we need to know who that is 08:12:37 nigel: Wrt consensus, when chartering for first time 08:12:47 ... not a defined group that you're trying to agree among 08:13:00 ... If you have 10 people and 1 doesn't agree, can recast it as 9 people who agree 08:13:03 q? 08:13:04 ... that's an anti-pattern 08:13:11 nigel: There's a point jyasskin made about findability 08:13:17 ... has been suggestion is to put all in repo 08:13:22 q+ to say rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear forum for consensus 08:13:24 ... really bad idea, difficult to work on comments per charter 08:13:31 ... one document per repo is a better idea 08:13:37 ... orthogonal to findability problem 08:13:54 nigel: Charter template adds a lot of pressure to conform 08:13:59 ... that's a new thing, doesn't feel right 08:14:02 ... too much pressure to conform 08:14:07 ... idk how to address that balance 08:14:08 +1 to one document per repo 08:14:21 ... There's a part of charter, if group doesn't intend to move to REC, add this text 08:14:38 ... I think if a group doesn't intend to go to REC, needs a lot more highlighting than that! 08:14:45 ... if you're working on a standard, why not making a standard? 08:14:53 s/... There's/nigel: There's/ 08:15:01 nigel: Wrt deliverables and timeline, there's duplication 08:15:09 ... either have a list of deliverables with times 08:15:11 ... or a timeline 08:15:18 ... having both creates potential for error state 08:15:23 ... happens like 100% of the time 08:15:25 --> https://github.com/w3c/Guide/pull/179 One repo for ALL 08:15:26 ... very unhelpful 08:15:39 nigel: Lastly, I don't understand how the joint deliverable idea 08:15:44 ... how it works, what does it mean? 08:15:48 ... Making things confusing for people 08:15:58 ... should be a better way, much clearer to have specific ownership of each REC-track document 08:16:01 ... then you know what's happening 08:16:02 q+ to respond to nigel re joint deliverables 08:16:05 q? 08:16:06 ... if you need more people, have them join the group 08:16:27 ... or have formal requirement to get review 08:16:32 q+ fantasai to speak about joint deliverables 08:16:32 qq+ 08:16:37 +1 to one document per repo for sure 08:16:37 ... that feels like safer places from management place 08:16:52 ... I'm sure you're solving a problem there, not sure what it is, but going to create a lot of other problems 08:17:01 ack anssik 08:17:03 anssik, you wanted to react to nigel 08:17:16 anssik: I agree that we need joint deliverables defined before we use them 08:17:20 ... can't create the rules as you're flying 08:17:30 plh: We've been using joint deliverables for the past 20 years 08:17:40 anssik: We need a written agremeent. Doesn't need to be complex 08:17:45 ack dom 08:17:45 dom__, you wanted to suggest evaluating rechartering shortcuts 08:17:49 dom__: 2 points 08:18:06 ... 1 pattern I'm hearing is that rechartering has created a push for looser charters, which create problems 08:18:23 ... so maybe one space of exploration is creating a simpler rechartering for adding deliverables 08:18:34 ... Stepping back I hope we get out of this breakout, how do we go about these topics 08:18:45 tantek has joined #w3process 08:18:52 ... Not just Process document, not just Team operation thing, also involves WG chairs trying to understand their roles, same for CGs 08:18:57 q- 08:19:02 ... If we can get a sense of right mechanism, that would be helpful 08:19:06 ack chris 08:19:16 present+ 08:19:31 ChrisL: wrt legal thing, one change to template recently to change "scope" and "motivation" sections 08:19:37 ... since actual scope is what legal need to review 08:20:03 ack sarven 08:20:13 csarven: Wrt how chairs are chosen 08:20:19 ... want the Team to be more transparent about that process 08:20:19 present+ Gonzalo Camarillo 08:20:31 ... I understand it's a private decision, not sure whether AB is involved in decision or aware of discussion? 08:20:45 ... if there is a charter being proposed, coming from a CG, I think the CG and community can benefit from 08:20:56 ... knowign decisions made beyond proposing the charter 08:21:03 I do wonder if there is a problem with too much history etc being put in charters I'd suggest formalizing some sort of history / background artifact that is optional to groups instead of trying to *formalize* putting that information in the charter itself just in a different section. 08:21:05 +1 to Dom's suggestion of easier process to add deliverables to charter 08:21:18 ... Document on role of the chair, and the document is along the lines of self-review for chairs nominating themselves and for Team to consider 08:21:35 ... Slight gap between CG proposing a charter, Team updating charter with chairs 08:21:44 ... no communication with CG as to why those particular chairs were chosen 08:21:46 Yes +1 to making it easier to add deliverables to the charter. 08:21:51 ... I have a list of question, maybe publish somewhere 08:22:07 q? 08:22:08 ... so that chair selection is more clear 08:22:11 https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/43#issuecomment-1711273031 08:22:11 Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568 08:22:16 it seems that one of the reasons for team's involvement in chartering is tht there is not a clear quorum for consensus. rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear quorum for consensus, and the consensus should be within the WG. when the team takes a charter out of the WG without consensus they have the opportunity to present the worst worded charter to AC-review rather than a charter with the weakest technical objec 08:22:16 tions. 08:22:19 ack rgrant 08:22:19 rgrant, you wanted to say rechartering, especially for maintenance, does have a clear forum for consensus 08:22:27 +1 csarven great questions. and https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568 looks really useful too 08:22:38 rgrant: Seems reason for Team's involvement in chartering is that there's not a clear quorum for consensus 08:22:42 ... when chartering 08:22:51 ... but for rechartering, I think should be in WG 08:23:07 ... when Team takes a charter out of WG, they might take a bad charter 08:23:18 ... for that reason, the consensus required for rechartering should come from within the WG 08:23:22 ack fantasai 08:23:22 fantasai, you wanted to speak about joint deliverables 08:23:37 q+ 08:23:39 tantek: I'd be honoured! Please copy/revise/reuse as you see fit. Would love to see something along these lines out there in W3C docs. 08:23:48 fantasai: external review is not a good substitute for join deliverables 08:23:54 thank you so much csarven. really appreciate it 🙏🏻 08:23:59 fantasai: because it doesn't give IPR commitments 08:24:11 fantasai: only the publish group is bound by the patent policy 08:24:31 ack plh 08:24:34 fantasai: [missed], it's not that complicated 08:24:45 plh: Wrt charter template, reason we do it 08:24:50 q+ 08:24:52 s/join de/joint de/ 08:24:56 ... I see some AC reps trying to push through requirements outside the process 08:25:03 ... a good example is the Ethical Web Principles 08:25:17 ... this is not adopted by the Membership, only by TAG 08:25:24 ... it's in the template, but I'm very uncomfortable with it 08:25:31 ... but also I understand why it's there 08:25:40 ... I think solution is to push TAG to adopt as Statement 08:25:46 ... but putting in template is problematic I believe 08:25:50 ... I haveplenty other examples 08:25:54 q? 08:25:56 q+ 08:26:00