IRC log of w3process on 2023-10-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:20 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #w3process

14:00:24 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/11-w3process-irc

14:00:24 [cwilso]

present+

14:00:28 [cwilso]

present+ florian

14:00:50 [cwilso]

present+ dingwei

14:02:12 [fantasai]

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html

14:02:36 [fantasai]

scribenick: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review

14:02:40 [fantasai]

scribenick: fantasai

14:02:42 [fantasai]

Topic: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review

14:03:18 [TallTed]

TallTed has joined #w3process

14:03:33 [florian]

q+

14:03:54 [fantasai]

florian: We had agreed to merge these, missed cycle, so we should do these

14:03:58 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on their own Decisions

14:04:07 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/749

14:04:23 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761

14:04:46 [fantasai]

florian: This is not excluding TAG and AB from Councils on what they do, but only from a vote if it comes down to a vote

14:04:55 [fantasai]

florian: This is a PR with an option, there is a question in the phrasing

14:04:55 [Dingwei_]

Dingwei_ has joined #w3process

14:05:20 [fantasai]

florian: proposed text is if it the decision/proposal originated from TAG then members of that group must abstain from the group OR members of the group *at the time*

14:05:36 [fantasai]

florian: I have a slight preference for keeping the fuller version, because it fully covers what we intend to do

14:05:44 [fantasai]

florian: but it's more complicated to express

14:05:59 [cwilso]

q+

14:05:59 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761/files

14:06:15 [fantasai]

cwilso: Either way is OK with me, but slight preference to keep the bracketed text

14:06:18 [florian]

s/complicated to express/complicated to express, and the difference may not be all that important/

14:06:33 [fantasai]

PROPOSAL: Merge PR including bracketed text

14:06:34 [cwilso]

+1

14:06:35 [TallTed]

TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-10-11 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/74b08985-d615-46d4-a52c-da0071b133c1/?recurrenceId=20231011T070000

14:06:36 [TallTed]

TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-09-27 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html

14:06:38 [TallTed]

+1

14:06:39 [florian]

+1

14:06:54 [TallTed]

TallTed has changed the topic to: W3C Process CG -- 2023-10-11 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html

14:06:59 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR761 including bracketed text

14:07:10 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Require reporting of dismissal vote countes

14:07:20 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748

14:07:29 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760

14:07:37 [cwilso]

q+

14:07:38 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760/files

14:07:45 [fantasai]

florian: Still looks good to me as a month ago :)

14:07:59 [fantasai]

cwilso: Issue filed was for something else and AB decided to do something different that sort-of touches the same spot

14:08:07 [florian]

s/as a month/ as months/

14:08:10 [fantasai]

cwilso: Not clear whether this resolves the issue or is a different optimization

14:08:19 [fantasai]

cwilso: issue filer didn't ever weigh in after AB resolution

14:08:30 [cwilso]

ack me

14:08:47 [fantasai]

See https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-05-24-doc#issue-15A

14:08:52 [fantasai]

15A, 15B, 16

14:09:01 [fantasai]

fantasai: This is covered in the DoC.

14:09:32 [fantasai]

fantasai: I split it into sub-issues in DoC

14:09:47 [fantasai]

fantasai: Goal of the commenters was to increase confidence in the Council

14:10:05 [fantasai]

fantasai: we decided to do that through transparency instead of changing vote thresholds

14:10:27 [fantasai]

florian: Did something different from what was requirements, but contradicting requests, so we did the best to address what was asked

14:10:43 [fantasai]

cwilso: I'm OK with the change, it wasn't clear if this resolves their concern or if we think this is necessary to increase transparency

14:10:50 [fantasai]

florian: You can't do both what Mark and what Nigel wanted :)

14:12:05 [florian]

q+

14:12:54 [fantasai]

fantasai: Going back up to what the commenters wanted, they wanted confidence that the dismissal process was something they could trust in

14:13:03 [fantasai]

fantasai: in general, we've not had much dissent in the dismissal process (if at all)

14:13:32 [fantasai]

fantasai: so showing that makes it clear to the AC how much consensus there was in the Council about its composition, and the confidence the Council has in its membership

14:13:54 [Dingwei]

Dingwei has joined #w3process

14:13:54 [fantasai]

florian: Regardless of whether Mark or Nigel or both are satisfied, I still think it's a good change, so we should land it

14:14:08 [fantasai]

florian: maybe that will be enough, maybe there will be follow up, but either way let's do it

14:14:22 [fantasai]

PROPOSAL: Merge PR 760

14:14:30 [TallTed]

+1

14:14:34 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR 760

14:14:46 [fantasai]

Topic: Substantive PRs to Review

14:14:55 [fantasai]

Subtopic: CR Snapshots need to address wide review issues

14:15:11 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/781

14:15:14 [joshco]

joshco has joined #w3process

14:15:23 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787

14:15:40 [fantasai]

fantasai: People inside the group can object to publishing a CRS, but people outside the group can be ignored indefinitely

14:15:45 [florian]

q+

14:15:52 [fantasai]

fantasai: so this trying to fix this by giving the Team some discretion in denying a CRS

14:16:19 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787/files

14:16:20 [florian]

fantasai: we already have CRD, which people can publish at will

14:16:47 [fantasai]

florian: Fact that ppl can ignore issues is not true for transition requests (changing stage)

14:17:24 [fantasai]

florian: This doesn't make it a requirement to address all the issues, but sets expectation that you should make some progress on such issues, and allows Team to deny CRS if not

14:17:34 [florian]

fantasai: any other opinion?

14:18:04 [fantasai]

TallTed: Just one grammar fix

14:18:22 [fantasai]

florian: pre-existing wording, but could fix as we go?

14:18:34 [fantasai]

PROPOSED: Merge PR 787

14:18:36 [TallTed]

+1

14:18:45 [florian]

+1, including TallTed's tweak

14:18:46 [cwilso]

+1

14:18:49 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR 787

14:19:00 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Default custodianship for Registries if custodian no longer available

14:19:14 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/699

14:19:19 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790

14:19:30 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files

14:19:35 [fantasai]

florian: We have notion of a registry custodian

14:19:49 [TallTed]

q+

14:19:49 [fantasai]

... when a WG sets up a registry, they describe the tables etc. but also who has the ability to update it

14:20:05 [fantasai]

... can be WG itself, coudl be a CG, could be the Team

14:20:08 [fantasai]

... But what happens if that body ceases to exist?

14:20:13 [fantasai]

... if you still have a WG around, you can fix it

14:20:46 [fantasai]

... but if no WG?

14:20:46 [fantasai]

... This empowers the Team to propose to the AC a new custodian

14:20:46 [fantasai]

... otherwise have to spin up a new WG to make the revision

14:21:00 [fantasai]

TallTed: As I understand, there would only be one custodian, so should be "the custodian" vs "a custodian"

14:21:02 [florian]

q+

14:21:25 [fantasai]

florian: Interesting nuance is that we anticipate that although it might be uncommon, the rules allow a registry to contain multiple tables, and possible for each table could have a different custodian

14:21:31 [fantasai]

... allowed by the rules, though unlikely

14:21:46 [fantasai]

TallTed: My concern is that it's the last custodian of a given segment

14:22:19 [fantasai]

florian: When we were preparing this, the way fantasai said to think of it was that if multiple groups are empowered to update a table, then collectively those groups are the custodian

14:22:19 [fantasai]

florian: I suspect in practice it won't make a difference

14:22:45 [fantasai]

[discussion of this grammar point]

14:23:06 [florian]

fantasai: we allowed each table to have a different custodian

14:23:24 [florian]

fantasai: but for each table, the custodian could be a person, a group, a set of groups…

14:24:01 [fantasai]

TallTed: I'd like to take a stab at rephrasing, so let's not merge today

14:24:02 [florian]

fantasai: so a registry could have multiple tables, each with a different custodian, and some of those custodians might be sets of multiple groups

14:24:33 [fantasai]

florian: that's fair. I think your concern is, for a particular table we allow group A or group B, then no need to replace one that's gone since still one active custodian

14:25:01 [fantasai]

fantasai: if we can do that without making the phrasing overcomplicated...

14:25:09 [fantasai]

florian: alternatively, remove notion of custodian per table

14:25:21 [fantasai]

TallTed: I think the more complicated handling is probably going to happen, given where some groups are going

14:25:57 [fantasai]

fantasai: do we want to resolve to merge with editorial tweaks delegated to editors / Ted?

14:26:03 [fantasai]

TallTed, florian: seems fine

14:26:19 [fantasai]

PROPOSED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks

14:26:33 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks

14:26:45 [fantasai]

Topic: Editorial PRs to Review

14:26:51 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Clarify what TAG+AB “approval” means:

14:27:00 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/741

14:27:10 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788

14:27:23 [florian]

fantasai: we didn't specificy what we mean by "approval" in approval of TAG+AB

14:27:29 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788/files

14:27:33 [florian]

fantasai: we meant according to their usual rules

14:27:40 [florian]

fantasai: so this PR clarifies that

14:27:56 [fantasai]

TallTed: Decision by each of TAG and AB?

14:27:58 [fantasai]

fantasai: yes

14:28:17 [fantasai]

PROPOSED: Merge PR788

14:28:19 [florian]

+1

14:28:23 [cwilso]

+1

14:28:25 [TallTed]

+1 with editorial tweak

14:28:25 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR788

14:28:31 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Clarify that registering an FO triggers process to address it

14:28:37 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/739

14:28:42 [fantasai]

PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789

14:29:10 [florian]

fantasai: this is about the fact that it wasn't clear that filing an FO triggers the process to handle FOs

14:29:12 [fantasai]

Changes: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789/files

14:29:20 [florian]

fantasai: so we added a sentence to make that more explicit

14:29:43 [fantasai]

florian: Original text, if you read the process for handling them, it has a deadline from the registration date of the FO

14:29:57 [fantasai]

florian: but didn't hook up explicitly from the FO filing section

14:30:23 [fantasai]

-> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#registering-objections

14:31:15 [fantasai]

TallTed: "filing" an FO doesn't trigger handling though

14:31:22 [fantasai]

fantasai: process uses registration

14:31:41 [fantasai]

florian: There is a difference between filing and registering, but once a thing has been filed, it will become registered at the end of the AC Review period

14:31:48 [fantasai]

florian: Process describes deadlines relative to registration

14:32:44 [fantasai]

TallTed: good enough

14:32:51 [fantasai]

PROPOSAL: Merge PR 789

14:32:59 [TallTed]

+1

14:33:03 [florian]

+1

14:33:05 [fantasai]

RESOLVED: Merge PR 789

14:33:13 [fantasai]

Topic: Issues to Discuss

14:33:20 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals

14:33:28 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/786

14:33:42 [fantasai]

florian: mnot raised an interesting set of questions related to disciplinary action by CEO

14:34:01 [fantasai]

florian: One is, Process says that decisions can be appealed, and if we don't say how, you can raise an FO

14:34:12 [fantasai]

... given that there's no such specific wording about disciplinary action by CEO

14:34:24 [fantasai]

... means that such action can be appealed through FO

14:34:32 [fantasai]

... That seems to be the impilication of the Process

14:34:40 [fantasai]

... Is a Council the right way to deal with such appeals?

14:34:58 [fantasai]

... Should we set up something else? Should we say they can't be appealed?

14:35:30 [fantasai]

florian: Mark also raised another question, it's not obvious that the Process gives CEO power to terminate an organization (rather than an individual)

14:35:43 [fantasai]

... and I would agree that the Process currently doesn't say anything about that, but maybe should think about that

14:35:53 [fantasai]

... and involve the Board about it

14:36:23 [florian]

fantasai: spinning up a council for disciplinary action is probably not the best thing to do

14:36:33 [florian]

fantasai: so if we want an appeals process, we should come up with something else

14:36:42 [florian]

fantasai: two options I can think of:

14:36:46 [florian]

fantasai: a) appeal to the Board

14:36:55 [florian]

fantasai: b) appeal to the AB

14:37:12 [cwilso]

q+

14:37:26 [fantasai]

cwilso: Given this is Membership...

14:37:29 [fantasai]

fantasai: this is individual

14:37:29 [florian]

fantasai: probably a question for the AB, but maybe people here have thoughts

14:37:35 [fantasai]

florian: both were raised

14:37:41 [fantasai]

cwilso: even for individuals, this is a decision of the CEO

14:37:48 [fantasai]

... I think it's more appropriate to appeal to Board

14:37:53 [fantasai]

... I agree appealing to Council doesn't feel appropriate

14:38:02 [florian]

q+

14:38:05 [fantasai]

... I'm not sure we can do much here without changing things like Member agreement?

14:38:18 [fantasai]

florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively includes the Process

14:38:38 [fantasai]

... that's the only way to effectively change the Member agreement, for not-new members

14:38:45 [fantasai]

... [missed]

14:38:53 [fantasai]

... My read of Process is that currently it is the Council, but that's not great

14:38:59 [fantasai]

... so probably pushing that to the Board or AB is a good idea

14:39:02 [fantasai]

... we should ask both

14:39:23 [fantasai]

florian: wrt establishing a way to dismiss organizations, in practice could do it in the Process, but would want to ask Board input on that

14:40:20 [florian]

fantasai: on the question of dismissing an org, it should be a decision by the board, probably by supermajority, only revertible by a a supermajority of the board

14:40:28 [florian]

fantasai: AB or TAG shouldn't be able to do that

14:41:12 [florian]

fantasai: also we have to make sure that termination of membership in Process terms is synced with termination in bylaws terms

14:41:20 [florian]

fantasai: would be weird to have a disconnect

14:41:24 [florian]

fantasai: but this is for the board

14:41:47 [fantasai]

florian: I agree, we should probably log an action item to take the Board part to the Board

14:41:49 [cwilso]

+1 Florian

14:42:05 [fantasai]

ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the Board

14:42:17 [fantasai]

florian: for individual disciplinary action appeal, take that question to the AB

14:42:58 [fantasai]

ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal issue to the AB

14:43:06 [fantasai]

Subtopic: Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member

14:43:11 [fantasai]

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/784

14:43:14 [florian]

q+

14:43:46 [fantasai]

florian: Narrow version of issue is, by being a TAG member, TimBL becomes one of the set of people that need to be unanimous for the short circuit of the Council to be used

14:44:01 [fantasai]

florian: this was not intended, and seems unfortunate that TimBl is on the critical path of a short circuit

14:44:14 [fantasai]

florian: One solution is to make a specific exception there, and say that TimBL can abstain

14:45:00 [fantasai]

florian: Another option is that, while TAG works mostly works by consensus, they do vote on e.g. chairs. And maybe we don't need to include TimBL on those? So posibly we could make him a lifetime guest of the TAG, or other special status

14:45:08 [fantasai]

... then not a formal member of the TAG, so not a part of votes

14:45:42 [fantasai]

florian: Ideally we'd get TimBL's feedback on it, but just want to make sure he's not formally tied in in places not intended

14:45:50 [fantasai]

... but input welcome

14:46:14 [fantasai]

florian: extra piece of info: even in case of Council that doesn't use short circuit, TimBl has chosen not to participate

14:46:28 [fantasai]

... so not being a formal member of the TAG, he would no longer be invited to Councils; but so far he has chosen to stay away

14:46:40 [fantasai]

... I suspect he intends this way and not an accident

14:46:50 [fantasai]

... if you refer to the speech he made in Sophia-Antipolis last spring

14:47:04 [fantasai]

... he explicitly reassured everyone that it's OK that we make decisions without him

14:47:12 [TallTed]

q+

14:47:17 [fantasai]

... so making him a Director-emeritus invited to TAG for life matches his expectation better

14:47:39 [florian]

s/so making him/so I think making him

14:47:45 [fantasai]

TallTed: I agree it appears he doesn't intend to participate, but maybe related to the issues that were raised

14:47:54 [fantasai]

... would be good to have explicit confirmation of what he intends

14:47:58 [fantasai]

... I'm OK with him going either way

14:48:06 [Dingwei]

+1

14:48:10 [fantasai]

... but some concerns due to indeterminate fate of SOLID WG

14:48:36 [fantasai]

... which he's definitely interested in, unclear whether he'll play his W3C role

14:48:48 [fantasai]

florian: I think plh took an action to check with him, but haven't heard back

14:50:06 [fantasai]

fantasai: Got two options, should we draft one (which one) or draft both, and ask him?

14:50:22 [fantasai]

florian: We could draft both, and give him the option in one shot

14:50:40 [fantasai]

fantasai: any other ideas?

14:51:09 [fantasai]

florian: A possible third path, keep him as a formal member of TAG, but to broaden the exception to not just short-circuits, but not include him in the Councils in general

14:51:33 [fantasai]

fantasai: maybe we go for all three then?

14:51:36 [cwilso]

+1

14:51:44 [fantasai]

ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim

14:51:54 [fantasai]

Topic: Any Other Business

14:52:18 [fantasai]

Meeting closed.