W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > November 2012

[minutes] 2012-11-29 Community Council teleconference

From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:02:12 +0100
To: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wojzdyw0svvqwp@sith.local>

Hi all,

The minutes of today's Community Council teleconference are at:
   http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html


Ian provided a summary in the Council's blog:

[[
We talked about:

* some process issues (notably Chair selection, but also some about  
decision making).

* some copyright topics (cc-by groups, moving cla/fsa to cc-by, and  
alternative copyright licensing).

* distinguishing CG deliverables from WG deliverables. Here we talked  
about more status information up front (draft or not, non-standard status)  
and any “limits” to words in the title (none decided on this call but  
there are some I think we would not want like “Recommendation”). We also  
talked about using “Draft Community Group Report” and “Community Group  
Report” to refer to the class of documents produced by CGs.

* We did not get to redesign.

Next steps will happen by mail.
]]

cf.  
<http://www.w3.org/community/council/2012/11/29/minutes-29-nov-2012-council-teleconference/>


Text snapshot of the minutes:
-----------------------------

                     Community Council teleconference
                               29 Nov 2012
    [2]Agenda
       [2]  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2012Nov/0006.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-irc

Attendees
    Present
           Ian Jacobs, Coralie Mercier, Josh Soref, Suresh
           Chitturi, Milan Young, Sorin Stefan, Wayne Carr
    Chair
           Ian
    Scribe
           Josh Soref, Ian Jacobs, Coralie Mercier

Contents
      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]policy
          2. [6]communications
          3. [7]education
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: Josh_Soref

    Ian: I sent an agenda for the blog
    ... and koalie forwarded it along
    ... the agenda has a summary, a bit about policy, a bit on
    infrastructure
    ... Milan has suggested the template make clear group practices
    ... any other agenda items people want to go over?

    <Ian> agenda:
    [9]http://www.w3.org/community/council/2012/11/14/scheduling-no
    vember-2012-teleconf-on-tpac-2012-discussion/

       [9]  
http://www.w3.org/community/council/2012/11/14/scheduling-november-2012-teleconf-on-tpac-2012-discussion/

policy

    Ian: immediately following the breakout section during TPAC

    <Ian>
    [10]http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Chair_selection

      [10] http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Chair_selection

    Ian: i set about having discussions with a variety of people
    about the Chair selection algorithm
    ... we were trying to address a situation where some
    participants in the group felt the chair wasn't listening to
    some of the group's views
    ... the extant mechanism intended to give participants control
    of the chairs
    ... was underspecified
    ... so clarifying group members choose their chairs
    ... the result is a chair algorithm discussion
    ... at a high level
    ... Group starts in "Trusted Mode"
    ... minimal process/no process
    ... as long as group is able to manage itself
    ... if there's disagreement
    ... and a vote of no confidence
    ... and the next phase kicks in
    ... where there's some sort of election
    ... if there continues to be strife, then the Team steps in
    ... independent of the details
    ... if you on IRC think that that's a useful phasing (phase
    1-2-3) of things

    <Milan> +1

    Ian: i'd like to see a +1
    ... Does anyone think that's a bad approach in principle?

    [ None ]

    <Michael> Why not create an umbrella election system for all
    groups from the start?

    <Ian> Michael, if you wish to participate, please join the call

    <koalie> this is Michael Cooper who is on IRC only

    <Ian> But to answer your question: to allow groups to operate
    differently.

    Ian: nothing prevents a group from jumping to phase 2
    ... but i don't want to force anything
    ... if i can avoid it
    ... this is a transition to the template tool
    ... we should give people tools, but i don't want to force them
    ... Now comes the question
    ... how do you describe an appropriate phase 2 (election)
    ... without doubling the current size of the CG process
    ... i did the process in the long form to try to avoid gaming
    ... it was hard to do in a small amount of space
    ... i tried to do something in a wiki
    ... and then reached a simple algorithm
    ... and then Wayne Carr proposed a simple algorithm
    ... I think Phase 2 is
    ... if we can keep it to a paragraph
    ... "participants choose their chairs"
    ... and a new section to the document
    ... the question is whether people have input on the selection
    algorithm
    ... which tries to prevent scenarios

    "I'm not happy with the chairing"

    half the group says "we're not happy"

    chair gets 50 new people to join the group

    Ian: there's text to prevent this
    ... there's text for ties

    Josh_Soref: I'm ok with wayne's approach to co-chairs
    ... and letting them figure out whether one drops out or not

    Ian: you could simplify the algorithm
    ... so it only takes one person to trigger an election

    <Suresh> If we could collapse to one algorithm that would be
    ideal

    Ian: there's another piece to prevent another election from
    happening for 2 months
    ... to give the newly elected chair some time to prove they're
    ok
    ... maybe we don't need the 5 participants bit with the 60 days

    Suresh: having 2 aglorithms seems too much
    ... rather than "simple" and "more complicated"

    Ian: i'm only proposing "no algorithm" if there's a problem you
    have to use "one algorithm"
    ... the notes are just notes
    ... to see how much you can get out of the process in as little
    text
    ... I don't know which you're trying to say

    Suresh: just the latter
    ... on "5", i think a percentage instead of an absolute number
    ... groups could be very big

    Ian: my sense on that one is
    ... average group size is 25
    ... 5 is about 20% of that
    ... for big groups, you'd never be able to trigger an election
    ... we chose 5 to express support for a group
    ... in a big group, you'd basically not have a chance to
    trigger an election
    ... do we want that?

    Suresh: if there's a chair, and a motion to change the chair
    ... the people requesting for changing chairs should be
    significant
    ... if 20-30% are upset, it makes a case
    ... but if 5 in a group of 200

    Ian: we don't have to resolve it here

    <Ian> scribenick: Ian

    Josh_Soref: In a big group, only a small number of active
    participants
    ... hard to get percentage among inactive participants
    ... in theory you want more of a quorum.
    ... you want to force people to nay/yea and ignore those who
    don't vote.

    Milan: +1 to One vote per organization.

    <koalie> scribenick: koalie

    Ian: if we go %age model, maybe we don't need the 60 days
    ... Summarizing for Wayne who just joined -- there is support
    on the call for 1-2-3 phasing, can 5 person trigger an
    election, or a percentage
    ... Josh_Soref's amendment is that only people who are active
    may weigh in
    ... we don't have to resolve this on the call today
    ... I want to see whether there's support for current proposal
    ... either 1) small number of people, or 2) percentage, or 3)
    percentage of active people
    ... any objections to any of those

    Milan: I don't like 3)

    Ian: the idea is you put out a survey, if someone doesn't
    bother to answer, you ignore them
    ... the percentage determination is based on those who answered
    the survey
    ... this is a "should be a vote".

    Wayne: I propose to keep it simple, and go for "5 people"

    Ian: OK. We can change that number.
    ... which is good for groups which have > 5 participants

    <Ian> W3C Process appeal is 5%

    Wayne: W3C process says 5%

    Ian: Yes
    ... People can continue discussion by list
    ... thanks for discussion that already happened on the list
    ... I invite people to annotate the wiki, edit, add comments
    ... we'll continue to massage that
    ... summary:
    ... 2 questions came up
    ... 1) all groups should use the same algo
    ... 1-2-3- steps or whether 3-phase approach is preferable
    ... Second part of policy item is about copyright topic
    ... initially 1 IPR model
    ... with two agreements.
    ... both have copyright commitments and patents commitments
    ... for groups that don't need patents commitments, we
    initially said "too bad", but now, we have enough groups in
    that case that we need to reconsider
    ... we need lighter-weight commitments.
    ... one of the risks I heard is that this is going to turn into
    google groups or such, but I'm not worried
    ... it's an implementation issue that needs a checkbox
    ... next question: what is a group needs patents commitments?
    ... we can close that group and start a new
    ... so I think all this can be addressed; it implies some
    changes to the policy, and implementation time
    ... second topic is changing to CC-BY

    wayne_carr: +1 to need for copyright-only gorups

    <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1 for wayne_carr

    [Ian gives background]

    <Ian> proposal 2 - move copyright to cc-by

    <Ian> wayne_carr: sounds fine

    <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to say i'm not opposed

    Josh_Soref: not opposed

    Ian: next copyright topic has to do with people who need terms
    that are different from W3C's terms
    ... because our copyright is permissive, people can be
    definition, license under alternative copyright terms --that
    isn't in dispute.
    ... it should also be the case that you can't force people to
    grant patent commitments
    ... question comes up: whether we can to create where we
    require people to sign other terms --this isn't my current
    expectation, we'll update the FAQ
    ... any reactions to that?

    [none]

communications

    Ian: one of the big topics at the breakout session had to do
    about how we talk about this work
    ... specifically how to distinguish from WG products
    ... current mechanisms: CG work is not listed under /TR/ where
    we list WG products
    ... we use a different style
    ... policy says they can't look like a WG product

    <Ian> "Community Submissions must not use a style that will
    cause them to be confused with W3C Technical Reports. W3C may
    publish additional policies to govern publication of Community
    Submissions."

    Ian: third, we require boilerplate text that this isn't on the
    standards track.
    ... Since the launch, people have pointed out a couple of other
    things
    ... 1) no use of the word final
    ... we can certainly change that.
    ... 2) use of the word "specification"
    ... we talk about "reports"
    ... we may not be consistent throughout the documentation and
    we can fix that
    ... "report" type of specification vs. type of specification
    ... what we mean: primer, use-case, etc.
    ... I don't mind avoiding "specification" as a class of things,
    ... but I am not sure I want to forbid people to use the word
    specification

    Wayne: I thought they needed to use "community specs"

    Ian: two contexts
    ... one is the title of a document
    ... I'd push back "SVG specification" but not "fooML
    specification"
    ... and then @@, we call them "Community Groups Reports"

    Wayne: overall list called "report" is ok

    <Suresh> +1 to calling final deliverable a "Community Report"

    Ian: you'd push back on using "specification" and replace with
    "community report"

    <Ian> wayne_carr: sounds good to have reports on index, and in
    title MAYBE add "community" before "specification" if
    specification is in the title.

    Wayne: Yes, that's what I heard people concerned about

    <Ian> Suresh: I think calling the class 'Community Report'
    would work

    Suresh: people tend to read specifications with expectations
    (should, must, etc.)

    Ian: CGs are allowed to do that, they can do the sort of
    specification you're talking about.
    ... the only question was whether the specification title
    should say "fooML" or "the fooML specification"
    ... I heard people shy away from the word specification
    anywhere.

    Milan: I'm uncomfortable with "community specification" just
    using that term as a title

    Ian: FooML will be called a Community Report

    Proposed: class is "Community Group Report"

    <Milan> +1

    Josh_Soref: where is class?

    <Ian> From the process:

    Ian: the index

    <Ian> "The label "Community Group Report" refers to any
    document produced by a Group. "

    Ian: second question about the document's title
    ... I don't mind "specification" in the title if that what the
    document does

    <Suresh> +1

    <Ian> Milan: Suggest that if "specification" is used in title,
    prefix with "Non-Standard"

    <Josh_Soref> +1

    koalie: +1

    <wayne_carr> it wasn't me saying I don't like specification

    <wayne_carr> I think community specification in a title is fine

    Suresh: @@

    <Suresh> Wouldn't the final deliverable be called a ''XX CG
    final report" instead of a specification?

    Ian: Status aren't required in CGs
    ... we could have a sub-title that says "draft" or "stable", or
    other vocabulary

    Ian: I'm reluctant to put "draft" in the title as it's metadata
    ... you could have a watermark that says "not a standard"
    ... I'm throwing out ideas I've heard

    Suresh: need to indicate it's not a standard

    Ian: the requirement already exists, I've heard this is not
    enough.

    Josh_Soref: random parsers could easily avoid a watermark
    ... any form of metadata can easily not ne noticed.

    Ian: I wouldn't say there should be one exclusive way
    ... I want to enhance the current requirement

    <Ian> Josh_Soref: I think we need even more nearer the title

    Josh_Soref: reporters and managers are likely to see the word
    specification
    ... wikipedia's definition of specification is that it's a
    technical standard

    Ian: we shouldn't struggle with the word "specification" which
    is accurate in some cases, we need to enhance the distinction

    Josh_Soref: a report is complete, you got that when it's done

    Ian: can call incomplete report a "draft report"

    <Suresh> Actually, I don't see current W3C specs using the word
    "specification" in the title e.g. HTML5, Widget Interface, so
    the question is how important is this?

    <Suresh> Atleast not many of them currently

    Ian: proposal "fooML specification, a draft community report"

    Suresh: current w3c specs don't use "specification" in the
    title, it uses the technology

    <Ian> [11]http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-all

      [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-all

    Ian: I agree a proportion of them do

    wayne_carr: where it is a specification it's important to say
    ... and you really end up with one

    Josh_Soref: CSS used to have documents with 'specification' in
    title, they have moved away from doing so

    wayne_carr: whether it's in the title or not is irrelevant

    [12]http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/

      [12] http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/

    Ian: I'm inviting people to suggest alternatives on the list

    Milan: boilerplate is not sufficient

    Ian: Yes, agreed.

    <Suresh> Need to drop off ...sorry!

    [Suresh leaves the call]

education

    Ian: documentation (we have a fair amount, we're waiting for
    new design to fully integrate)

    <Ian> [13]http://www.w3.org/wiki/ModernGuide

      [13] http://www.w3.org/wiki/ModernGuide

    Ian: and we're also separately working on overhauling
    documentation for Chairs
    ... A lot is going to happen in terms of good practices
    ... Now, on charter habits
    ... I heard let's have a draft charter template
    ... we already have a charter generator that is available to
    WGs
    ... a static document might be enough to get started.
    ... anything people want to call out?
    ... I'd welcome if someone wanted to take a stab at drafting
    that document.
    ... coremob cg have already robust material to draw on
    ... any volunteer?

    [no volunteer]

    [Ian and Coralie will work on that doc and socialize it]

    [Sorin Stefan, who needs to leave the call, is the one who made
    the CGs design and is working on a new version that is great]

    Ian: Milan wanted to cover how we raise awareness in a group
    about the group's operating procedures

    Milan: as long as a group wasn't posing any problem, fine, but
    when there are and there are no laws, some are needed

    Ian: Current process says groups can have operating procedures
    ... Implementation of your comment: when a group has such
    procedures, give us the URL and it appears near the "join"
    button.
    ... if group has none, we show a warning
    ... that this group had no additional procedures other than
    those in the policy

    Milan: It has to be a strong warning
    ... I got badly burned

    Ian: do you want to suggest language on the list for such a
    warning?

    Milan: Sure

    wayne_carr: Distinguish "Not yet provide" from some other thing
    ... in other words, groups should want to document their
    procedures and
    ... cause the "warning" to go away

    <koalie> ACTION: Milan to suggest wording on the list for a
    warning that a group doesn't have additional procedures beyond
    the policy's [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Suggest wording on the list for
    a warning that a group doesn't have additional procedures
    beyond the policy's [on Milan Young - due 2012-12-06].

    Ian: I want to avoid requirement about decision-making
    ... I heard Milan say he's ok with disclosure as starting point

    wayne_carr: If someone said "We will listen to you but do
    whatever we want" then I think it should be shut down

    Milan: I agree it should not be a requirement that we have
    "fairness" in the democratic sense. They do need to disclose.

    Ian: I will go back to this

    wayne_carr: In the real situation where there are a small
    number of companies that dominate a market and they decide
    everything,

    <Ian> the question is...does W3C want to enable it or not.

    Ian: we recommend consensus but do not require it. Not opposed
    to some minimal decision process

    <Ian> from coremob charter:

    <Ian> "It is the Chair's responsibility to ensure that the
    decision process is fair, respects the consensus of the CG, and
    does not unreasonably favor or discriminate against any group
    participant or their employer."

    <Ian> [15]http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/

      [15] http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/

    IJ: I would support good practice like that in charter template

    <wayne_carr> consensus may not be the right word, since implies
    near unaniminity, maybe will

    <Ian> actions?

    [Josh_Soref leaves]

    <Ian> ACTION: Ian to work with Coralie on a draft charter
    template [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Work with Coralie on a draft
    charter template [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].

    <Ian> ACTION: Ian to review simple algorithm for chair
    selection and annotate with some options that we discussede
    [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Review simple algorithm for
    chair selection and annotate with some options that we
    discussede [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].

    <Ian> ACTION: Ian to summarize suggestions/considerations
    regarding document class, title, and status info [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Summarize
    suggestions/considerations regarding document class, title, and
    status info [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].

    Ian: next meeting?

    <Ian> Proposed: review deliverables by email.

    Ian: for the time being we can review deliverable by mail

    [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ian to review simple algorithm for chair
    selection and annotate with some options that we discussede
    [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Ian to summarize suggestions/considerations
    regarding document class, title, and status info [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Ian to work with Coralie on a draft charter
    template [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Milan to suggest wording on the list for a
    warning that a group doesn't have additional procedures beyond
    the policy's [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html#action01]
    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
     1.135 ([24]CVS log)
     $Date: 2012-11-29 20:58:36 $

      [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
   Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
      W3C/ERCIM - B219 - 2004, rte des lucioles - 06410 Biot - FR
mailto:coralie@w3.org +33492387590 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 21:02:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 November 2012 21:02:22 GMT