– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

Pull Requests to Review

Adjusting AC Appeal vote thresholds based on participation

<fantasai> github: w3c/process#886

<fantasai> PR: w3c/process#901

florian: Currently, an AC appeal has a 5% threshold to decide whether to have a vote or not
… The actual vote has no quorum, so we thought it was good to borrow from the bylaws, which has majority threshold dependent on participation
… The AB approves to do this
… fantasai commented about the boundary thresholds, but this is consistent with the bylaws

cwilso: +1, looks good

cpn: I had the same question about the thresholds

florian: they were drafted by lawyers for the bylaws

RESOLUTION: Adopt PR #901

Add appendix cataloguing old terminology

<fantasai> PR: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/898#pullrequestreview-2193057084

florian: This came up in discussion of retiring PR. Have text in the Process to define what PR was, once it's removed
… so I've added an appendix, terms that have been retired, or changed terminology
… This includes links to where those terms are defined
… Ted commented it might be easier to find things if they're not separated. Happy to tweak how we link to things, but terms often aren't linkable

TallTed: I think it would be better to have one list, ordered by term, rather than anything that assumes knowledge
… Regarding linking, there are ways to link to phrases in pages that we could use

florian: We could list in alphabetical rather than chronological order. Or we could merge into one list, which would make the list easier to scan
… Any thoughts on these?

fantasai: We should definitely order alphabetically

RESOLUTION: Order alphabetically

cpn: So single list annotated whether renamed or removed

RESOLUTION: single list, annotated whether renamed or removed

florian: When there's no term we can link to, is it good enough to link to the section, or use web annotations to link to the phrase?

fantasai: Is there a dfn to link to?

florian: In older processes, there sometimes isn't

https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#RecsW3C

https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers

florian: Some terms were used but never defined, so link to the whole Process in that case

https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#other-charter

florian: Would you like to see an updated PR before merging? I'll make the links as specific as I can

https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#maturity-levels

TallTed: I think it would be easier to hash this out in this PR, then discuss in a future call, there may be some back and forth

RESOLUTION: Adopt appendix retired terms, pending some tweaking

Charter Refinement Phase

PR: w3c/process#851

github: w3c/process#580

florian: This has been presented to the AB. They liked it in principle, leaving the detail to the CG
… We have a phase with a facilitator to decide if ready for AC review. FOs are not processed immediately, they're tabled to be included with any others from the AC review
… The AB want to shift the emphasis, that this isn't a good time to raise an FO, and to try to seek consensus. Better to file the FO at the end
… We can try to add this in editorially
… Another open question is that during the chartering phase, the chair is supposed to make decisions, but based on whose consensus? Any AC who particpates, anyone from the public?

fantasai: If just AC reps, not helpful as they're not always involved. If only W3C members, it excludes participants of CGs who aren't members
… So really is does need to be anyone from the public, but the chair will need to decide consensus

florian: Chairs can make decisions in absence of consensus, but suspect you're right

RESOLUTION: Consensus is based on anyone participating

florian: Another question, from Tess, is that the team MAY announce when starting to think about a charter, and why not MUST?
… Sometimes we may be renewing a non-controversial group, or there may only be a short time to the announcement of the formal phase
… Don't want too many announcements

cwilso: Not against MUST here. In cases where there's only a short time to the formal announcement, the problem today is the charter is pushed to the formal process without enough review
… I think SHOULD, as MUST may be too strong a requirement as will need to be announced anyway

TallTed: MUST does seem too strong. You'll tell the AC when there's a draft worth reviewing anyway

cwilso: Any announcement should be filterable. The team could write a charter, that's missing some context from an interested community - e.g., if we have multiple CGs interested in a topic
… There, an early announcement would help bring people together

florian: it could be a way to get very early feedback on an idea for a charter. Should they announce everything?

TallTed: It seems more a concern when it's not the team drafting the charter, and someone in the community

cwilso: The sustyweb charter is a good example. Nobody was against the idea, but pushback. Could have been an email before the formal review...
… Not a requirement, so don't want to say MUST, but if it's MAY we need to include guidance on when to do it

fantasai: I'd go with MAY for now and add to the Guide

cpn: I would support that. I think it's worth going into more depth in which circumstances do we want to do that.

cpn: What I observed on sustainable web, the charter is what prompted everyone to look at it.

cpn: I was looking at it quite early in the w3c/strategy repo

cpn: But what focused everyone's attention was the AC Review

PROPOSED: Advance notice stays as MAY, add guidance to /Guide.

<TallTed> +1

<JennieM> +1

<cpn> +1

RESOLUTION: Advance notice stays as MAY, add guidance to /Guide.

florian: Next, are there cases where the charter needs not to be public?

fantasai: May want input from plh on this

florian: Can we send a non-public charter to the AC review, and can the charter development phase also be non-public?

RESOLUTION: Defer to plh

florian: Is the chartering facilitator the chair of the proposed WG, team contact

TallTed: There may not be a team contact at this early phase. They get assign as groups get rolling

<florian> +1 to fantasai

cpn: I'd like to see some sort of independence with this

cpn: E.g. the Team Contact has a particular interest, and that's why they're involved in charter development

cpn: idk what this would look like, but some level of impartiality

cpn: because we're talking about a chairing role

florian: Agree, something different between leading something and chairing it

florian: we'll need to gain experience, and premature to describe precisely who will be chairing it

florian: how to pick is probably /Guide material

florian: sometimes may be Team Contact, sometimes may be Wg Chair, sometimes someone else

<cpn> +1

florian: I'd leave open-ended for now

RESOLUTION: Don't define who is the Chairing Facilitator, leave open-ended for now

florian: Next, Tess asks how to become a participant. It's intentionally open-ended. Seems good to me

fantasai: Seems fine, unless there's specific wording that can clarify

fantasai: Dom mentions this allows anyone in the public to raise FOs
… I don't think we can restrict FOs to AC reps, and not sure that's a good idea. Batching them up the at end seems reasonable

TallTed: Is the decision to draft a charter a decision in this sense?

florian: Yes. If someone requests the team drafts a charter and it doesn't happen, you can object. But the other way round, it wouldn't be processed until the AC review. You can't prevent discussion of a charter by filing an FO

fantasai: Do we want to land this PR as is or keep discussing?

cpn: I have a concern that we're making changes to Process for something that needs experimentation.

cpn: If it works, great. But if we find that we put in place this new process and it needs adjustment...

cpn: is there a way to experiment with it, and once we're settled use that as the basis to update the Process?

florian: In a way I agree with you, but I also don't want to be blocked

florian: plh said they would experiment half a year ago, but haven't seen it...

TallTed: Call for implementations and set a timeframe for it

TallTed: We don't really have that CR phase for Process

florian: Team is currently doing chartering in open fashion right now

florian: but what we can't be open-ended about is the FO handling

florian: Team hasn't been quite as strict as this process, but largely like this

florian: How long would we need the experiment to be to be useful?

florian: How different from the current practice?

florian: Would rather not delay this by years.

cpn: Need defined procedures. Question is whether we do it in the Process, or elsewhere for awhile

cpn: I think we're close to what we can work with.

cpn: But if comfortable with iterating in Process document as we experiment

cpn: Then that's OK

fantasia: The Process is still a draft

cpn: By putting it into the Process at this stage, feels less experimental

TallTed: Could add it in with an issue note?

fantasai: I think we should fold this as is, and file issues about FOs or other concerns.

florian: The team doesn't use the editors draft of the process

RESOLUTION: Adopt PR 851 Introduce formal Charter Refinement phase

Meeting closed.