Meeting minutes
Pull Requests
#874
Github: https://
Github: w3c/
plh: any objection
RESOLUTION: Let's mergeg #874
#875
Github: w3c/
Florian: outside of AV review, we don't have a process
… so having a note saying that the CEO does it seems confusing/unecessary
plh: I'd like to get feedback from Seth
ACTION: plh to check with the CEO
Florian: can we agree to do this unless Seth says anything?
plh: sure
RESOLUTION: unless we receive a comment from the CEO, this will get merged
#873
#877
Github: w3c/
Florian: the REC track a few maturity levels, that's WD, CR, PR, REC
… FPWD is not a maturity level
… so, you go from Note->WD, not WD->FPWD
… I looked at the Patent Policy and Process, I believe this is what was meant
… so this is a clarification
… this case shouldn't arise most of the time. In the past, we turned REC-track to Note, because we did not have discontinued draft
… the recent case was Ruby
plh: should we consult PSIG for that?
… since FPWD has a call for exclusion
florian: while the document is a Note, it's ok. Once it's a WD, you get committed once you join
… if you republish a FPWD, then what happened to the previous commitment? It's a new document.
plh: I'd feel more comfortable if we were asking for PSIG confirmation
Florian: the patent policy doesn't care if it's outside the REC-track. Once it's back on the REC track
… if you make normative changes to a Note, that could be a problem but the patent policy doesn't address that
fantasai: I think this is the correct thing to do. If you join the Group when it's a Note, you might not realize that you will have an opportunity later
plh: joining a WG with documents in Note state (or editor's draft state) doesn't create an exclusion opportunity
Florian: it's not obvious how things work around rechartering
plh: I'm fine with making the change and notifying PSIG
<cwilso> +1
RESOLUTION: Let's merge #877 and notify PSIG
ACTION: fantasai to notify PSIG
#873
Github: w3c/
Florian: it seems it's possible to move from CRD to PR if you don't make substantive changes. but the definition of CRD claims that it was only to prepare a CRS
… the PR makes things clearer
Plh: +1
RESOLUTION: Let's merge #873
#878
Florian: let's at both #878 and #865
Florian: we have classes of changes
… the pull requests harmonize how revising a recommendation work with those classes.
… I prefer 878
plh: the Note talks about "This prohibition" but the previous paragraph doesn't mention a probihition
Florian: we could rephrase with "This restriction"....
plh: that's fine by me
RESOLUTION: merge #878 after additional editorial tweaks for the Note
<fantasai> +1 to merging and tweaking the note somehow
#876
Github: w3c/
Florian: there is an article in the Guide about Workshops. We have a section about workshop and symposia and doesn't contain much rules
… that section only has one requirement: how far ahead it is announced
… I suggest to move the rule into the meeting section, as well as workshop definition
… and move the rest into the /Guide
… we have rules about recorded meetings unless people disagree, which will apply to workshop as well
… currently the rule is 8-weeks advance notice
plh: I agree and disagree. I agree in principle, but disagree because more work for me in /Guide
plh: regarding advance notice, could bypass process by calling it something other than "Workshop"
florian: This PR fixes that loophole, because doesn't say for workshops, but says for open events such as workshops.
… open-ended meetings should have enough notice to attend
… could make the edits without generalization, but thought it would be a good idea.
plh: I think need more feedback for this, run it by the Team.
florian: Agree, let's be sure about what we're doing
fantasai: I think we need an escape hatch
… a casual/local meeting for example
… like a WG organizing a dev meetup on the side
… the pull request is too strict
florian: should we restrict it to workshop? include an exception mechanism?
plh: restrict it to workshop
florian: what about symposia?
plh: we haven't had one for the past 20 years at least....
florian: [missed]
… but for something like a developer meetup, at most it informs a specific WG, doesn't direct W3C itself
… that's why I think restriction on Workshop is important, it can impact direction of W3C so need enough notice for Members to be there
… but for things that are informative, it matters less
… nowadays also we have a lot of recordings, so if you're not there you can see it afterwards
florian: OK, I'll modify PR to make the advance meeting notice apply only to Workshops
plh: sounds good to me
fantasai: let's come back to this with a new PR
Florian: I'll update the PR