Meeting minutes
Issues to Close
Team updating Notes
github: w3c/
florian: Since issue, we made some changes
… Team can do Class 1 edits (markup fixes)
… also can annotate proposed changes
… can't fold in directly, but can say that once a WG is created expect to make these changes, or whatever
… Issue seems to be addressed; if we want more could open a follow-up later
plh: Team can make Class 2 changes in REC that has no WG
… [quotes Process]
… but for a Note, how do we differentiate editorial vs substantive?
florian: Old definition of the classes of changes didn't help, but we updated that
plh: If we have a definition that works for NOTEs, then we should make REC and NOTE match
… if can make editorial edits to REC, why not NOTE
… though in practice, Team is unlikely to make any edits on its own to a REC
florian: [quotes spec]
https://
florian: So your proposal is to update ability of Team to match REC
plh: or downgrade to match
plh: so far haven't needed to, unless there's a group behind it
florian: If didn't have ability to mark proposed changes, wouldn't be enough
… but given that, is it not enough?
plh: I can imagine it, but unlikely without a responsible group
… don't think we should give wildcard to Team to make substantive change to notes
… idk how to do in NOTEs
florian: we can do the same as REC amendments in NOTEs
plh: but we can leave substantive changes to another day, not much motivation atm
fantasai: if not closing issue, let's move on, lots of stuff on agenda
W3C Glossary
github: w3c/
florian: Not great, but it exists and AB can publish as a NOTE
… propose to close the issue, file follow-up against the AB
plh: makes sense to me
… covers only Patent Policy and Process?
florian: It has a few parts, automated pull from Process and Patent Policy
… also two manual sections, one where we link to relevant terms defined elsewhere
… not every term in W3C, but ones that are widely relevant
… and terms that are widely relevant but not defined elsewhere, can add into glossary
… not good enough yet, but framework is there
plh: agree to close issue
… anyone else?
<fantasai> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue 456
Whistleblower Policy
github: w3c/
florian: We previously wanted to transfer issue to Board, but they already adopted a policy so nothing to transfer
… if their policy isn't good enough, should file issue against them
plh: +1
<fantasai> +1
<cpn> +1
RESOLUTION: Close 481
Representing the W3C
florian: Broad issue, we solved the part that fits into Process
… when Membership wants to make a collective statement, we have Statement track
… however issue also concerns with other thing, can the Team make a statement on behalf of W3C on smaller matters
… in a timely manner
… we haven't addressed this, but not in-scope for Process
… there's an existing policy; probably needs updating, but not in scope for this group
… so for us, we're done; and the rest is for someone else
plh: agreed
florian: rest should probably be addressed by CEO with advice of AB
… probably too detailed for the Board
plh: but in any case not here
<cpn> +1 to leaving to CEO + AB
<plh> +1
<fantasai> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue / transfer part to AB
Pull Requests to Review
Consistency of Maturity Stages wrt placement of "Draft"
github: w3c/
florian: We narrowed to 2 options, and took a poll. 8 in favor of adopting, 1 in favor of doing nothing
… ChrisN, do you object to adopting? Preference seems clearly the other way around.
cpn: Mildly dislike. "Note Draft" reads awkwardly, and I'm OK with the word being in different places. But won't object.
florian: I think 8-1 and no objection means we do it
plh: unsure what it means for our publication system
florian: We're not changing many of them
… and not adopting just yet
… if it's a major challenge for systeam can reopen
plh: ok, lets agree to adopt, and I'll fyi to webmaster
RESOLUTION: Adopt PR 819
Retire "Streamlined Publication Approval"
github: w3c/
florian: When we did Process 2020, we tried to make some transition requests easier because at the time it took a long time
… we introduced a stricter path in the Process, that doesn't require the Director's decision
… but nobody used this
fantasai: also we streamlined getting manual approval a lot
florian: overall REC track is long and complicated, this chapter doesn't help much and just confuses people
… suggestion is to delete
<fantasai> +1
<cpn> +1
plh: +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 857 to delete "Streamlined Publication Approval"
Disambiguate "each" in TAG appointment ratification
github: w3c/
florian: Clarified that original intent was AB and TAG separately ratify
… we wanted to clarify in the Process to avoid confusion on that point
… there's also some other questions about TAG appointments, but to answer narrow question of clarifying this original intent
… this phrasing seems to work, so let's merge it and keep discussing the rest separately
plh: sgtm
<fantasai> +1
plh: objections?
<cpn> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 837 to clarify "each"
Disambiguate vote thresholds
github: w3c/
https://
https://
florian: Process discusses various votes, passing by majority or supermajority
… identified 4 ambiguities
… I landed the first one based on previous call
… 2nd one is about TAG, come back to it later
… 3rd and 4th we agreed on what we mean, and I made 2 PRs to address
… 3rd about Council dismissal, 4th about Council decision votes
<fantasai> +1
plh: objections to 841?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 841
florian: [introduces 842]
plh: objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 842
florian: With these merged, the only thing remaining is about the TAG. I suggest we spin out into a separate issue and close.
… that conversation is complicated, better in a separate plae
plh: +1
<fantasai> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment
Editorial Rewrite of Charter Approval
github: w3c/
florian: As fantasai and I were working on revision of Charter development/review, we found the existing section to be poorly written
… so this is just to rewrite editorially to make easier to read and follow
/github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files///github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/850/files
plh: There are some changes to active charter that don't require AC review
florian: That's still there, just moved it
… original text mixed these up a lot, so we made subsections
fantasai: This is probably easier to review ith the text side by side rather than diff view, because we basically rewrote it
[use the gear icon to get split view, instead of unified]
POLL: Approve change?
<fantasai> +1
<plh> +1
<florian_irc> +1
<TallTed> +1
<cpn> +1
<joshco> abstain
RESOLUTION: Adopt PR 850
Charter Review Process
github: w3c/
https://
florian: We've been discussing several months
… currently it's informal, but this formalizes it
… creates a formally identified phase (calling "charter refinement" currently)
… to start it, is a Team Decision -- so can object
… and has a Facilitator (Chair) to drive progress
… progress requires wide review, addressing issues, etc.
… and then decision to take to AC Review
… if anyone files an FO prior to AC Review, we group that objection with the AC Review FOs, so the Council can address everything together
… (this is something we learned from experience)
plh: Looking at "Advance Notice" requirement, a few things not comfortable
… 1st is to identify location of charter draft which must be public
… means we can't do anything if we're thinking about this, but don't have draft yet
florian: We're using the term 'Advance Notice" for the start of this new phase. But if we want an earlier notice... we can have two different words
… which one is called 'Advance Review Notes' ... probably it's this one because can't "review" if nothing to "review"
… but making a notice "we're thinking about a charter, come talk to us" is also fine
plh: Today we have two phases
… 1. We're working on a charter, should tell AC about it
… 2. We have a draft, and asking ppl to review it
… horizontal review, etc.
… which one is it?
florian: in between. You might not have a completed draft, but you have something
… you could have a mostly blank draft, but probably premature
plh: had an AC meeting session on identity, trying to evaluate whether to look into it
… sent advance notice about working on a charter
… and some of us spent some time working on a draft
… then went around asking for comments
… hoping to start AC Review in May
florian: I think at the end of these two days, you would have sent the Advance Review Notice saying "we have a thing, want ppl to work with us to make it ready"
<florian_irc> fantasai: the point of this notice to to provide more structure
<florian_irc> fantasai: if we're in a hazy phase where we don't really need formal feedback because there's no controversy, or because you don't yet know what you're doing, it's too early
<florian_irc> fantasai: but if you have put a draft together, or if you're having trouble putting a draft together because of controversy…
<florian_irc> fantasai: then having this phase with formal helps, thanks to formal chairing
plh: I like that, but the proposal removes requirement on Team to tell AC that they're working on a charter
… we often can send draft, but some cases where we know the WG is talking about a charter and basically send a signal to AC to say, there are conversations happening over there
… not sure that's a good thing or bad thing
cpn: Another benefit in this earlier review
… when charters get to AC Review, you have a community very invested in the charter
… if objections from AC, better to bring up earlier
… so in general supportive of any effort to bring concerns earlier
… in addition to other benefits described
cpn: wrt your concerns of Advance Notice, anything stopping from doing both things?
… you can send an early notification that working on a charter, and another that it's time for wider review
plh: nothing stopping us other than maybe concern about too many emails to AC
… a little uncomfortable about removing requirement on staff about this early notification
florian_irc: Not removing requirement on Team to communicate, just shifts timing
… if Team is wondering whether it should try to write a draft, want to ask feedback, send a notice
… but if you already know, then just start it and announce the draft
… if you anticipate that what you draft will be controversial, make a draft with lots of "fill in the blank" and send the notice earlier to ask for help
cpn: I think I'd prefer to keep the requirement for earlier advance notice
… even if that means multiple notifications
… uncomfortable about later in the phase only
<florian_irc> fantasai: I don't have a strong feeling either way on the earlier notice
<florian_irc> fantasai: we can keep that req if people want it
<florian_irc> fantasai: if that's too much traffic, we can set up a separate mailing list that people can subscribe to
<florian_irc> fantasai: we can also kick that question to the AB or AC
plh: I don't have strong feelings either, want to hear from AC
… if early notice and advance notice coincide because we receive a charter that's fairly complete, can merge into one
florian_irc: if we go this way, I suggest we amend PR to include both
… that way we can have stable names for them
… and then include a provision that says if they happen at the same time, can send one mail
plh: corner case, Verifiable Credentials has been discussing their charter
… only change is, reason they do rechartering because can't extend more than 6 months
… and that requires an AC Review
… so nothing much changed, and here in this advance review notice, expected duration for phase is 28 days
… so basically before 28 days of AC review, force 28 days of pre-review
… most cases it's fine, but some cases where nothing changed in the charter
… corner case, idk if we care enough
florian_irc: 6-month limit, is that good practice or basis in the Process?
plh: might be good practice, maybe W3M committed to AC
… AC didn't like e.g. 2-year extensions
florian_irc: should this be in the Process?
… we could say charter extension is by Team Decision, but longer than six months requires AC Review
… [missed]
fantasai: How about just if it's under the Team Decision scope of minor decisions, then Team MAY request AC Review (and then doesn't require the 28-day wide review phase)
florian_irc: could do that, and if later want to forbid Team from e.g. longer extensions then can request a separate change
fantasai: At Time
florian_irc: ok, I'll make adjustments and we'll come back to it
End
Meeting closed.