14:54:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
14:54:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-irc
14:54:52 <capjamesg> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:54:59 <capjamesg> present+
14:56:45 <omz13> hello all
14:56:46 <KevinMarks> is jitsi waiting for the top of the hour to start?
14:57:40 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
14:58:25 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
15:00:19 <dshanske> KevinMarks: Apparently not
15:00:32 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
15:01:03 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #social
15:01:10 <snarfed> snarfed has joined #social
15:01:43 <bengo> hi folks
15:01:44 <bengo> present+
15:01:56 <dmitriz> present+
15:02:01 <KevinMarks> present+
15:02:07 <tantek> Zakim, start meeting
15:02:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:02:09 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), tantek
15:02:20 <tantek> present+
15:02:27 <tantek> present+ bengo
15:02:30 <tantek> present+ dmitriz
15:02:38 <tantek> present+ KevinMarks
15:02:55 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
15:02:55 <Zakim> Present: capjamesg, bengo, dmitriz, KevinMarks, tantek
15:02:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see snarfed, eprodrom, tantek, bengo, dmitriz, RRSAgent, dshanske, Zakim, KevinMarks, mro, treora, lanodan_, cptaffe, timbl, someonewithpc, includeals, tenma, vt,
15:02:56 <Zakim> ... fr33domlover5, Loqi_, feld65, capjamesg, cayley5, trwnh, xrisk, ajordan, Raito_Bezarius, raucao, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, sudocurse, mattl, ckolderup, englishm, justus,
15:03:00 <Zakim> ... Ariadne, jutta[m], alois[m], Mrtn[m], enick_885, aaronpk, rigelk[m], wakest[m], zeekno[m], npd[m]1, ma1uta, cambridgeport90[m], patrice[m], karl[m], cybrematrix,
15:03:00 <Zakim> ... syndic-will[m], JulianF[m]
15:03:07 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge_ has joined #social
15:03:10 <eprodrom> present+ eprodrom
15:03:14 <bumblefudge_> present+
15:03:24 <bumblefudge_> people who haven't officially joined the CG can do so here: https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/
15:03:28 <dshanske> I am present for the first time. Haven't been available previously for this time.
15:03:41 <angelo> angelo has joined #social
15:03:56 <pzingg> pzingg has joined #social
15:03:57 <snarfed> present+
15:03:58 <tantek> scribe: bumblefudge_
15:04:03 <omz13> present+
15:04:10 <tantek> bumblefudge_++ for scribing
15:04:10 <Loqi_> bumblefudge_ has 2 karma over the last year
15:04:24 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: timeboxing would be good to get through agenda
15:05:12 <tantek> topic: decision-making policy proposal
15:05:13 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: let's get into the socialCG charter/process topics raised by bengo first (slight variation from the emailed agenda)
15:05:29 <dshanske> (Is the Jitsi supposed to have started?)
15:06:03 <capjamesg> dshanske Yes. Are you not in the call?
15:06:06 <bumblefudge_> bengo: there's been a lot of text in various channels but the proposal itself is fairly simple, i'll summarize
15:06:18 <baku> baku has joined #social
15:06:32 <dshanske> capjamesg: It says Asking to Join meeting...but I just saw a Tantek message. I'll try restarting
15:06:41 <capjamesg> tantek https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Sep/0118.html
15:06:41 <bumblefudge_> ... the original email is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Sep/0118.html
15:07:26 <bumblefudge_> ... (proceeds to summarize rapidly)
15:07:44 <tantek> q?
15:08:14 <bumblefudge_> ... i also summarized the feedback on list in this digest: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Oct/0024.html
15:08:30 <dshanske> I have people...but no audio yet....but beeping noises. So assume it is working.
15:08:57 <bumblefudge_> evan: how do you want to structure the discussion?
15:09:35 <bumblefudge_> bengo: you can speak to any point you like, i don't have much agenda except wanting to move to consensus
15:10:38 <bumblefudge_> evan: my concern is that this proposal frames itself as tabula rasa, while i think 5 years have passed on process defined at meetings and in minutes
15:10:41 <tantek> +1 evan
15:11:26 <bumblefudge_> ... i take the point that async decisions and inputs have been lacking, but this feels like a challenge to status quo
15:11:39 <tantek> does "every single minute" "every single resolution" mean of the CG or also of the WG?
15:11:42 <bumblefudge_> bengo: but i read through all the minutes i could find and not finding much in the way of process-defining group decisions
15:12:09 <bumblefudge_> evan: ok i can try to recap the history a bit
15:12:31 <bumblefudge_> ...: the CG was spun up when the WG spun down, probably without enough explicit/formal documentation of process
15:13:12 <bumblefudge_> ... maybe some of the rules have been unspecified or implicit/norm-based, and i think the general idea of this proposal is good, i just
15:13:12 <snarfed> this can't be the first time a CG needed a decision making process. why are we trying to invent one ourselves?
15:13:41 <dmitriz> @snarfed - definitely. and we're not reinventing; bengo's proposal reflects basically every other cg/wg policy
15:13:51 <bumblefudge_> ... want accepting this document NOT be taken as the first or only process of the group
15:14:14 <bumblefudge_> bengo: actually in the minutes, i only see an explicit chair decision to NOT have a charter
15:14:22 <snarfed> @dmitriz good to know, thx
15:15:03 <bumblefudge_> evan: but group decisions have been taken by +1/-1 for 5 years and that seems to be working, even without an explicit agreement
15:15:16 <bengo> james audio odd?
15:15:24 <bengo> refresh helps sometimes
15:16:03 <bumblefudge_> evan: mailing list was disabled for 5 years, starting minutes after the CG was formed
15:16:24 <bumblefudge_> tantek: the mailing list was turned off deliberately because we decided in that meeting it was counterproductive to the workmode of the CG
15:16:37 <bumblefudge_> ... namely, focusing on git issues and archived
15:17:09 <bumblefudge_> ... IRC channels for async and smaller side meetings
15:17:12 <capjamesg> Thanks bengo!
15:17:20 <capjamesg> I have disconnected my headphones which should help.
15:17:35 <bumblefudge_> ... i don't think most of the messages since we turned the list back on are useful for moving this work forward
15:18:14 <bumblefudge_> ... I believe any kind of process needs to be centered around editor productivity
15:18:29 <bumblefudge_> ... and we should optimize for what the existing and past editors want
15:18:46 <snarfed> I assume "spec maintenance" doesn't include normative changes? is a CG allowed to make those...?
15:18:59 <bumblefudge_> ... I think our choice of channels and media should protect mental health of editors
15:19:19 <bumblefudge_> ... e.g. monitoring lots of channels just distracts and burns out editors
15:20:16 <bumblefudge_> ... i think much of the list is currently distracting and harmful and hurtful and if i were an editor i'd ignore it
15:20:31 <dmitriz> -1 tantek :(
15:21:13 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: (queue update)
15:21:19 <bumblefudge_> q?
15:21:20 <capjamesg> Group GitHub: https://github.com/swicg
15:21:25 <capjamesg> (presently not active)
15:21:31 <angelo> present+
15:21:57 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: it is not up to any of us to make quality judgments about community discussion channels, CGs have an obligation to their communities
15:22:11 <bumblefudge_> ... our goal is not solely to editor productivity and specs, but to balance outputs against community inputs
15:22:58 <bumblefudge_> ... if I can turn to bengo's concrete proposal, I don't see how community feedback is a roadblock to productivity
15:23:04 <bumblefudge_> ... or onerous in general
15:23:14 <plh> plh has joined #social
15:23:35 <tantek> for the record, -1 on the proposal
15:23:37 <tantek> q?
15:24:02 <KevinMarks> I'm not on the queue
15:24:15 <tantek> q+ KevinMarks
15:24:19 <tantek> qq+
15:24:25 <bumblefudge_> david somers: I think async is very crucial here, and lots of us are timezone distributed ffrom one another
15:24:27 <dmitriz> +1 github issues ight be a great tool
15:24:39 <bumblefudge_> ... i like github issues for document-based and long-form/thoughtful contirbutions
15:24:41 <tantek> exactly what david somers said
15:24:45 <tantek> +1 david somers
15:24:49 <bumblefudge_> ... but mailing list can help people workshop ideas before they post them on github
15:25:15 <bumblefudge_> lisa: not all community input is good! charters and codes of conduct exist to filter out non-constructive input and feedback
15:25:24 <tantek> +1 li
15:25:30 <tantek> s/+1 li/+1 lisa
15:26:00 <dmitriz> +1 Lisa, I meant more about increasing community input slightly, from what it was before. I heartily agree there are careful limits, within charter
15:26:03 <bumblefudge_> bengo: I would contribute my personal experience to say that in many CGs I have participated in, I use mailing lists are primary reporting and feedback mechanism
15:26:30 <bumblefudge_> ... and take decisions WITHOUT having to miss work and family obligations to attend sync meetings
15:27:02 <bumblefudge_> ... there is a section of "gaining consensus" in the w3c docs that i find really useful here, w3c has been based on these rules for 20 years
15:27:37 <bumblefudge_> ... a big part of open standards (and their usefulness to regulators and legislators) is gathering (filtered, of course, and weighted) the feedback of all affected parties, not just implementers or editors
15:28:14 <bumblefudge_> tantek: huge +1 to async productivity.  the w3c used to use mailing lists primarily but is more github based in the last 10 years for all issues of substantial or technical issues
15:28:32 <bumblefudge_> ... including issues of process, which can also be done in git-structured and issue-threaded ways
15:28:33 <bengo> I've never seen GitHub issues used for calls for consensus and notice of provisional resolution, which is all my proposal covers
15:29:17 <bumblefudge_> ... i've seen mailing lists that are net-positive for many groups, but I see them less and less over the years
15:29:35 <dmitriz_> dmitriz_ has joined #social
15:29:55 <bumblefudge_> ... i think there are some bad-faith or emotionally-charged "blowups" happening on the fediverse threads about these issues
15:30:23 <bumblefudge_> ... and i feel the collegiality is suffering from a general decline in buy-in and consensus
15:30:45 <bumblefudge_> ... we need to find a way to raise the bar and heal the tone and tenor of the discussion in the channe;s
15:31:12 <bumblefudge_> ... i would say that the dominant mode of working groups in w3c is synchronous, in-meeting group decisions
15:31:51 <capjamesg> +1 re: new information.
15:31:52 <bumblefudge_> ... getting input from others is important, and even synchronous meetings are susceptible to additional information reopening the issue
15:32:13 <dmitriz_> +1 that a lot of WGs make decisions on calls. But many/most of those groups also have a period for consensus/objections
15:32:15 <bumblefudge_> ... but not simply by people who miss meetings saying they would have objected if they had been there
15:32:36 <bengo> My proposal includes a clause establishing that decisions are pending new information.
15:32:53 <bumblefudge_> ... i agree with lots of the principles in the proposal but im still -1 on the proposal procedurally
15:33:14 <bumblefudge_> evan: i'm really interested in how this has evolved
15:33:19 <plh> [I created a placeholder in w3c/strategy to register the conversation on a social weg wg: https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435 ]
15:33:25 <tantek> +1 dmitriz_ yes, period for async discussion BEFORE WGs make decisions on calls. thank you for noting that
15:33:49 <tantek> also, issues typically added to agendas of meetings in advance for discussion
15:33:57 <bumblefudge_> ... i think async is a clear value-add here, and i agree that making major decisions during sync meetings is a real handicap here to full participation by half the world's timezones
15:34:08 <Loqi_> [preview] [plehegar] #435 Restarting the Social Web Working Group
15:34:29 <bumblefudge_> ... i agree with tantek that we should optimize for the goals of the group, which have until now been very git-focused for deliverable work, particularly normative work
15:34:30 <dmitriz_> @tantek - that's essentially what Bengo's proposal is. adding a period for async discussion before decisions
15:34:54 <bumblefudge_> ... i think more administrative and organizational work benefits more from async decision making
15:35:22 <tantek> dmitriz_: not really, it's post sync which is not what w3c groups do
15:35:23 <bumblefudge_> ... so i support both.  i think re-considered all prior decisions 1 by 1 would be a bad idea, but i'm glad to hear that bengo did not intend that
15:35:26 <dmitriz_> +1 evan that previous decisions are binding
15:35:37 <bengo> Evan, absolutely, I never meant to call into question past resolutions that have been posted.
15:35:41 <bumblefudge_> ... so i am more open to this given that was my only really blocking objection
15:36:04 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: i have to volunteer here that i am putting in a lot of time watching all the channels
15:36:21 <tantek> capjamesg++ chairs doing a lot of volunteer work
15:36:21 <Loqi_> capjamesg has 3 karma in this channel over the last year (122 in all channels)
15:36:24 <tantek> dmitriz++
15:36:24 <Loqi_> dmitriz has 1 karma over the last year
15:36:29 <omz13> one caveat with in-meeting decisions is that sometimes life will get in the way resulting in people not being able to attend (which is, for example, why I couldn't attend the last meeting)
15:36:30 <tantek> nightpool++
15:36:30 <Loqi_> nightpool has 1 karma over the last year
15:36:33 <bumblefudge_> ... i take seriously my role as channeling and filtering inputs
15:37:00 <bumblefudge_> ... but chairs (current and future) have to ultimately mediate what gets discussed and decided by the group
15:37:09 <tantek> q?
15:37:12 <tantek> ack tantek
15:37:12 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to react to a previous speaker
15:37:14 <bumblefudge_> ... curating finite discussion time and prioritizing and timelining
15:37:38 <bumblefudge_> ... it's also our duty to consider the process malleable and improve it over time
15:37:53 <bumblefudge_> ... so we (as chairs) are open to ideas like this to make the group work better
15:38:06 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: (queue note: kevin you're on the irc queue and we're using jitsi queue)
15:38:27 <bengo> Woah GitHub for process discussions is bold. Unlike when SocialWG editors started using it for certain work items, GitHub is now owned by a completely different company that has started datamining participation there to train AIs that ignore the licenses by people who use the platform. I have a big concern of starting SocialCG procedural chatter on GitHub.com via w3.org
15:38:45 <bumblefudge_> ... evan, it sounds like maybe your main objections are met?
15:38:57 <bumblefudge_> ... tantek, how can we move towards consensus on this?
15:39:17 <bumblefudge_> tantek: i think this freestanding document is a little odd, could we include this in a CG-wide charter?
15:39:23 <capjamesg> I am happy to lead an initiative on a CG charter.
15:39:27 <bengo> Charters are a kind of Operational Agreement. My proposal is to establish an operational agreement. A charter is not a meaningful distinction. We can pass operational agreements atomically, not a big document with pork/horse-trading.
15:39:42 <bumblefudge_> ... one major concern is that it feels like a proposal in a vacuum.  so maybe it's time to have a charter after all, since there is disagreement about how to proceed
15:39:49 <capjamesg> And work with chairs to help us get to a document ready for the edification of the community.
15:40:22 <plh> present+
15:40:50 <bumblefudge_> evan: maybe these one-off documents are good as an intermediate or stop-gap measure to build up a charter but editing it into a cohesive charter would be great
15:40:52 <dmitriz_> @bengo -- +1, we can work on Operational Agreements in parts. And "how do we make decisions" is an important part of the OA
15:40:52 <Loqi_> @bengo has 3 karma over the last year
15:41:16 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: i can definitely put some time in to make a full charter with the group, happy to take inputs via list
15:42:08 <bumblefudge_> plh: i opened an issue to track the new possibility of a second group, on w3c git repo...
15:42:31 <plh> --> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435 Restarting the Social Web Working Group
15:42:37 <Loqi_> [preview] [plehegar] #435 Restarting the Social Web Working Group
15:42:37 <tantek> s/second group/second working group
15:42:41 <bumblefudge_> ... it's a public issue, everyone is welcome to comment on it
15:42:48 <tantek> q+
15:43:02 <evasync> evasync has joined #social
15:43:41 <bumblefudge_> evan: can we take a group decision now on the call?
15:43:44 <capjamesg> plh See https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion#Deliverables for a page sent to the community for contributions.
15:44:17 <bumblefudge_> kevinmarks: i think there's a tension between synchronous and async
15:44:53 <dmitriz_> PROPOSAL: adopt the proposal
15:44:53 <dmitriz_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Oct/att-0024/swip-37f2-proposal.md
15:45:08 <bumblefudge_> ... i think keeping document-based discussion in a git-based platform like github is fine, and the prior art is heterogeneous here
15:45:23 <bumblefudge_> ... some groups find email and document-based to work well together, others don't, no one-size solution
15:45:32 <dmitriz_> +1 (we can modify the proposal to add Github to the process)
15:45:42 <bumblefudge_> ... i don't love the idea of going back in time 20 years and discussing documents over email
15:45:44 <tantek> -1 on the proposal, especially "provisional" point for sync decisions. async discussion should occur before an item is brought to a sync agenda
15:45:47 <bengo> The proposal text is
15:45:52 <KevinMarks> -1
15:46:11 <capjamesg> -1, but could be a +1 if the time period is reduced to 7 working days, and we use GitHub Issues.
15:46:13 <snarfed> -0
15:46:21 <bengo> irc... speaking of 30+ year old work modes
15:46:23 <bengo> +1
15:47:08 <lisarue> lisarue has joined #social
15:47:27 <bumblefudge_> q+
15:47:27 <pzingg> +1 but would like to have the email responses archived in a Git* issue
15:47:54 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: kevin would you be more ok with github being source of truth?
15:48:09 <bumblefudge_> kevinmarks: no, i think email being source of truth is the problem
15:48:24 <tantek> q?
15:48:33 <eprodrom> +0 with the understanding that this proposal does not cancel out previous resolutions of the CG
15:48:37 <dmitriz_> ack Kevin
15:49:10 <dmitriz_> ack bumble
15:49:17 <snarfed> GitHub _Issues_ vs files in git, very different!
15:49:19 <dmitriz_> ack tantek
15:49:19 <bumblefudge_> bengo: could you explain more, kevin, about the CG groups that don't use email?
15:49:35 <bumblefudge_> tantek: i disagree that email or async is the W3C norm
15:49:44 <bumblefudge_> ... and if anything async decisions are an anti-pattern
15:49:58 <bumblefudge_> ... i would support email discussion PRECEDE official group decisions during sync calls
15:50:05 <tantek> -1 on any requiring any sync meeting decisions as "provisional", that should be up to the discussions
15:50:19 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: young folks are easier to get on github than onto mailing lists
15:50:28 <tantek> s/up to the discussions/up to the discussions in the group and chairs facilitating decisions in the groups/
15:50:31 <lisarue> Sorry for joining IRC late; there's a little too much IRC to catch up on so quickly, but I did reply to the mailing list that a full-coverage call-for-consensus always-to-email process gets a "-1" from me.
15:50:45 <bumblefudge_> ... even the notion of mailing list subscriptions can block participation
15:50:57 <bumblefudge_> ... also the multiple channels is an issue
15:51:09 <dshanske> I'm older than capjamesg and I find mailing lists ineffective for this. I only use mailing lists that offer static type notifications, not discussions.
15:51:15 <tantek> +1 dshanske
15:51:17 <bumblefudge_> ... that said, imposing a discussion period is also good, to prevent "surprise decisions" during meetings
15:51:22 <eprodrom> PROPOSAL: form a CG charter task force
15:51:37 <bumblefudge_> evan: i'd propose a charter task force?
15:51:46 <bumblefudge_> bengo: other agenda items?
15:51:59 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: I think we've heard from everyone, let's continue this async
15:52:00 <tantek> agenda?
15:52:05 <bengo> I think my proposal strongly encourages sharing Calls for Conesnsus to other forums (e.g. SocialCG forum aka socialhub, and I think a GitHub repo is compatible with that too. One issue is that would be a brand new repo I assume, so I don't expect there is a lot of existing audience there unless there is a process repo for SocialCG I'm not aware of.
15:52:48 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge: i heard people on this call talking about documents needing a different workmode than administrative decisions, big +1, i think implicitly this proposal wasn't intended for normative decisions but for decisions aboutw hat documents go into git in the first place
15:53:06 <capjamesg> Wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion
15:53:08 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: polling for editor interest is a top priority here
15:53:22 <bumblefudge_> dmitriz: would git issues be easier than a wiki or list threads?
15:53:34 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: yeah I think swicg repo on github is good
15:53:43 <bumblefudge_> tantek: +1 to issue-based next steps for this
15:54:05 <bumblefudge_> ... but wiki is maybe more open than github or mailing list
15:54:13 <snarfed> +1, issues and maybe wiki, not files in the repo
15:54:35 <bengo> point of info: anyone can email public-swicg@w3.org. Is the same true for who can edit/contribute to the w3c wiki?
15:54:59 <bumblefudge_> ^^^
15:55:10 <bumblefudge_> tantek: plh is here, we should ask him about how to charter
15:55:35 <bumblefudge_> bengo: strategy issue is there until the CG proposes a WG charter?
15:55:52 <bumblefudge_> ... is there a failure mode where CG doesn't have consensus on a WG charter?
15:56:15 <bumblefudge_> plh: it's not a critical failure, a charter can still get accepted, but i strongly prefer the CG propose one charter
15:56:23 <bumblefudge_> ... multiple charters are a problem we prefer to zero charters
15:56:50 <bumblefudge_> bengo: what does the w3c want to see?
15:56:52 <lisarue> I'm not a big fan of moving large amounts of discussions to github but I don't object strongly enough to object.
15:57:14 <bumblefudge_> plh: like i said at TPAC, the top priority is a healthy feedback loop to the specs that maintain and make updates as needed to it
15:57:32 <dmitriz_> @lisarue - I think the idea is that discussions can be on list or wiki or github. And will be tracked/linked to/summarized on github
15:57:42 <bumblefudge_> ... if there aren't updates you're blocked on producing, you don't need a WG
15:57:52 <bumblefudge_> bengo: can CG write its own updates to the specs?
15:58:12 <lisarue> @dimitriz_, I think your clarification makes my concerns worse.
15:58:14 <bumblefudge_> plh: yes but we prefer a WG for IP purposes, even if it's just an "umbrella" documenting technically the CG consensus goals
15:58:22 <bumblefudge_> ... so the goals have to come first
15:58:26 <bengo> thanks plh
15:58:53 <dshanske> +1 to actually having clearly defined goals before building a political structure around it.
15:58:56 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: editors of other socialCG specs have proposed normative updates to those as well, as per my email last month
15:59:03 <dmitriz_> @lisarue - what would you like to see instead?
15:59:13 <capjamesg> Quick time check that we have 2 minutes left, but we can continue discussions async.
15:59:17 <bumblefudge_> evan: is the WG requirement strict for normative changes?
15:59:28 <lisarue> @dmitriz_, let's not get into that here because I don't object.
15:59:37 <dmitriz_> @lisarue - thanks, noted.
15:59:43 <bumblefudge_> plh: 7 or 8 years ago, it would have been, but we have shifted norms a bit to optimize for ongoing maintenance
16:00:00 <bumblefudge_> ... so that patent protection continues to protect ongoing updates to patent-protected documents
16:00:13 <bengo> It would be helpful to have a special topic call explaining the patent policy protection and risks of opening vs not opening a new WG that would have new patent exclusions on top of the ones that arleady happened in SocialWG
16:00:24 <bumblefudge_> tantek: bengo asked about ambiguities
16:00:29 <bumblefudge_> ... and those sound normative to me
16:00:43 <bumblefudge_> bengo: but errata and other amendments to docs CAN be accepted by w3c staff
16:00:58 <lisarue> (I'm happy to disagree and commit on many things but also happy to explore why I might have some disagreement but on the third hand it's a messy convo with lots of nuance and interdependencies)
16:01:29 <bumblefudge_> plh: the w3c team CAN update specs directly, but it's more an exception than an option, we don't love the additional IP risk in those cases
16:01:52 <bumblefudge_> evan: lots of anxiety in the broader community that a WG would change too much, embrace/extinguish, etc
16:02:08 <bengo> great question Evan
16:02:10 <bumblefudge_> ... are there ways we can get a WG that optimizes for CG input and allays those concerns?
16:02:38 <dmitriz_> +1 Evan
16:02:39 <bumblefudge_> plh: actually, let me zoom in on a previous comment, w3c team has actually downscoped its leeway for those direct changes
16:02:46 <tantek> +1 plh
16:02:47 <bumblefudge_> ... to purely editorial or non-substantive ones
16:02:59 <bengo> I believe few ActivityPub list/forum/fediverse users have expressed an interest in substantive changes to the TR
16:03:07 <tantek> +1 bengo
16:03:20 <bumblefudge_> ... so i would mention that the WG can be scoped to a way that allay concerns about scope creep
16:03:34 <bumblefudge_> ... for example, a charter can say, "only clarifications and improvements to the existing functionality with no new functionality"
16:03:35 <lisarue> I'm going to leap ahead a bit -- I'm +1 forming a proper WG .  Messy imperfect groups like the W3C exist to imperfectly protect public goods like these specs from capture.
16:03:37 <tantek> you can also do that per spec
16:03:51 <tantek> +1 forming a proper WG inclusive of specs with editors that want to work on them in the WG
16:03:52 <bumblefudge_> ... or you can even go so far as to say "WG can only change functionality or add features with CG consensus"
16:04:00 <bumblefudge_> ... that is also a valid option in a charter
16:04:06 <bengo> "Note: If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain a Recommendation the Team cannot make substantive changes and republish the Recommendation. It can, however, informatively highlight problems and desirable changes using errata and candidate corrections and republish as described in the previous section."
16:04:34 <bengo> I meant w3c team "informatively highlight problems and desirable changes using errata"
16:04:43 <bengo> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#revised-rec-substantive
16:05:06 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge: not seeing much wiki activity how do we get people writing to it? email?
16:05:31 <tantek> bumblefudge, lots of wiki edits, mostly from Evan :)
16:05:32 <bumblefudge_> capjamesg: anyone CG member has access, email already went out, please go to wiki and provide features
16:05:50 <bumblefudge_> ... they want to see in-scope or out-of-scope of upcoming substantive changes to specs
16:06:27 <tantek> see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges for example, note all the contributions from eprodrom++
16:06:27 <Loqi_> eprodrom has 1 karma in this channel over the last year (2 in all channels)
16:06:41 <capjamesg> Did that not propagate?
16:06:43 <capjamesg> Will do!
16:06:57 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:06:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
16:07:06 <bumblefudge_> d'oh
16:07:06 <bumblefudge_> scribe fail
16:07:06 <capjamesg> Zakim, this conference is SWICG Community Meeting October 6th, 2023
16:07:06 <Zakim> got it, capjamesg
16:08:45 <tantek> Meeting: SWICG Meeting
16:09:15 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:09:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
16:09:37 <tantek> present+ dshanske
16:09:52 <tantek> present+ Lisa_Dusseault
16:10:41 <dshanske> Yes, I confirm I was here.
16:12:02 <csarven> Is https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion edit for all or was that data based on a meeting discussion or email thread or whatever?
16:14:18 <tantek> chair: capjamesg
16:14:24 <tantek> chair: dmitriz_
16:14:30 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:14:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
16:15:16 <tantek> chair: capjamesg, dmitriz_
16:15:42 <tantek> present+ omz13
16:17:00 <tantek> present+ David_Somers
16:19:27 <tantek> s/that email or async is/that email or async decision are
16:20:02 <tantek> s/anything async decisions/anything email decisions
16:20:23 <tantek> s/support email discussion/support async like on GitHub issues discussion
16:21:26 <tantek> s/aboutw hat/about what
16:21:32 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:21:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
16:27:41 <tantek> present+ baku
16:32:27 <tantek> s/d'oh//
16:32:37 <tantek> s/scribe fail//
16:32:59 <tantek> s|Is https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion edit for all or was that data based on a meeting discussion or email thread or whatever?||
16:33:05 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:33:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
16:34:01 <tantek> s/Did that not propagate?//
16:34:18 <tantek> s/Will do!//
16:34:25 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:34:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
17:19:35 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
18:11:39 <capjamesg> csarven Any CG member can -- and is invited to! -- edit that wiki page!
18:15:01 <tantek> Zakim, end meeting
18:15:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been capjamesg, bengo, dmitriz, KevinMarks, tantek, eprodrom, bumblefudge_, snarfed, omz, angelo, plh, dshanske, Lisa_Dusseault, omz13,
18:15:04 <Zakim> ... David_Somers, baku
18:15:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:15:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html Zakim
18:15:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, tantek; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:15:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #social
18:15:56 <tantek> s/csarven Any CG member can -- and is invited to! -- edit that wiki page!//
18:16:01 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:16:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
18:16:39 <capjamesg> Meeting: SWICG Community Meeting October 6th, 2023
18:16:50 <capjamesg> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:16:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html capjamesg
18:33:27 <tantek> Meeting: Social Web Incubator CG
18:33:42 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:33:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
18:44:17 <tantek> s/Wiki page:/Topic: Social WG Charter
18:44:25 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:44:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
19:11:55 <tantek> s|Social WG Charter https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|Social WG Charter wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|
19:12:39 <tantek> i|wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|capjamesg: notewiki|
19:13:00 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:13:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
19:14:05 <tantek> s/capjamesg: notewiki//
19:15:07 <tantek> s|Topic: Social WG Charter wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|
19:15:32 <tantek> i|wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion|Topic: Social WG Charter
19:15:36 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:15:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
19:19:59 <tantek> s/any requiring any sync meeting/requiring any sync meeting
19:21:53 <tantek> s/issues ight be/issues might be
19:22:47 <capjamesg> s/anyone CG member has access/any CG member has access/
19:28:26 <tantek> s/"blowups"/"blowups", as Amy (rhiaro) wrote in their recent blog post,
19:28:32 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:28:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
19:28:53 <tantek> s/channe;s/channels
19:29:15 <tantek> s/dominant mode of working groups in w3c/dominant mode of decision-making in working groups in w3c
19:31:24 <tantek> s/discussion PRECEDE official group/discussion preceding official group
19:34:29 <tantek> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:34:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/06-social-minutes.html tantek
23:33:09 <tantek> RRSAgent, bye
23:33:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items