W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

[minutes] 2013-12-02 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:23:51 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.w7l4d1f4svvqwp@sith.local>

Dear all,

The summary and minutes of this week's Revising W3C Process Community  
Group Teleconference are at:
   http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html

Text snapshot:
--------------

           Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
                               02 Dec 2013
    [2]Agenda
       [2]  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Nov/0051.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-irc

Attendees
    Present
           Mike Champion, Charles McCathie Nevile, Ralph Swick,
           Coralie Mercier (scribe), Steve Zilles, Jeff Jaffe,
           fantasai
    Chair
           Steve Zilles
    Scribe
           Coralie Mercier

Contents and Summary

      * [4]Topics

          1. [5]conflict on 9-Dec with AB call spanning CHAP7 slot
             No CHAP7 TF meeting on 9-Dec, next meeting on 16-Dec.

          2. [6]issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some
             organizational issues and readability suffers
             RESOLUTION: Chaals to implement Fantasai's proposal,
             but not have the Note/Rec track discussion separate
             from the explanation of the difference

          3. [7]fantasai co-editor of the Process Document
             RESOLUTION: fantasai joins chaals as co-editor of the
             Process Document

          4. [8]issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard
             RESOLUTION: Close issue-54 as there was no consensus
             for changing Recommendation to Standard, acknowledging
             it will be raised again.

          5. [9]issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section?
             Ongoing issue in the hand of the editor.

          6. [10]issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's
             Calls can be excessive overhead
             RESOLUTION: Close issue-50 as the resolution of
             issue-51 will cover the concern of issue-50. Steve
             Zilles took the action to get in touch with Art
             Barstow (who raised issue-50) to convince him that
             combining LC and CR is efficient.

          7. [11]issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed”
             encouraged/ensured?
             There is consensus to drop "single" in "single
             signal". The sense of the TF is to encourage
             meaningful status section messages in the specs.

          8. [12]issue-70 -- Usage of "normative" needs
             clarification
             Usage of "normative" needs clarification. Steve Zilles
             took the action to contact Ian Jacobs and ask if he
             knows any reason why Art's suggestions are not worth
             doing.

          9. [13]Next meeting, next steps
             Next CHAP7 TF meeting on 16-Dec. Goal would be to have
             a new draft chapter 7 by mid to late January 2014.

      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: Coralie

    <scribe> scribenick: koalie

    <koaliie> [15]Previous (2013-11-25)

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2013/11/25-w3process-minutes.html

    <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group
    Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2013

conflict on 9-Dec with AB call spanning CHAP7 slot

    SteveZ: there's at least a half hour of the AB agenda (9-Dec)
    that is a summary of the CHAP7 Tf
    ... So I propose to not hold a CHAP7 TF meeting next week
    ... thoughts?

    Jeff: Lot of input especially in the last few days
    ... also need to factor in the vacation time in December

    RESOLUTION: No CHAP7 call on 9-Dec, next call on 16-Dec.

    SteveZ: the 16th would be the last phone call we can
    effectively hold

    Jeff: I'll already be on vacation, FYI
    ... Maybe I can join, maybe I'll reply in e-mail

    [fantasai joins]

    SteveZ: Chaals, update on where the next draft is?
    ... and secondly, thoughts on full process with chapter 7 in
    it?

    chaals: Next draft so far has some typos fixed...
    ... I need to rename LCCR
    ... then need to look at resolutions

    SteveZ: Can we get an updated draft prior to 9-Dec AB
    teleconference?

    chaals: Yes

issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some organizational
issues and readability suffers

    SteveZ: I'm looking for the issue around restructuring of table
    of content
    ... maybe it wasn't raised as an issue

    issue-59

    <trackbot> issue-59 -- The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some
    organizational issues and readability suffers -- raised

    <trackbot>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/59

      [16] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/59

    chaals: I disagreed only with trying to separate rec track and
    note track
    ... in practice they entertwine
    ... when I first suggested we introduce notes, I think it makes
    sense to explain notes

    fantasai: There are documents which are meant to be published
    as notes
    ... and others which end up published as notes
    ... For me they are distinct
    ... It would help to make that clear

    chaals: I think we agree
    ... There are things that are on the note track, others on rec
    track that end up on the note track, etc.
    ... I don't disagree with the substance
    ... I prefer one section over two, to do part of the
    explanation

    SteveZ: We can talk about next steps and describe one is the
    note track

    fantasai: We should be clear about what it takes to go to note.
    Boxes around "next steps" makes sense to me.

    chaals: I think we agree fundamentally. I can implement your
    proposal modulo not keeping them separated.

    <chaals> [proposed resolution: Chaals should implement
    Fantasai's proposal, but not have the Note/Rec track discussion
    separate from the explanation of the difference]

    RESOLUTION: Chaals to implement Fantasai's proposal, but not
    have the Note/Rec track discussion separate from the
    explanation of the difference

    <Ralph> reopen issue-59

    <trackbot> Re-opened issue-59.

fantasai co-editor of the Process Document

    fantasai: Someone in that thread said I should be an editor of
    the process
    ... so if you want me there, let me know

    chaasls: Do you want to edit the process?

    fantasai: Yes

    SteveZ: Any objection, chaals, to having fantasai as co-editor?

    chaals: No

    SteveZ: Any objection?

    [none]

    RESOLUTION: fantasai joins chaals as co-editor of the Process
    Document

    [fantasai's first request is to re-indent everything]

    [chaals and fantasai will talk offline]

    Ralph: Please, collaborate in such a way to make source diffs
    readable

issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard

    issue-54?

    <trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard --
    open

    <trackbot>
    [17]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54

      [17] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54

    <Ralph> Ralph would be happy to close issue-54 as "not at this
    time"

    Chaals: my personal preference is to kill it, but I can easily
    live with it as "raised"

    Jeff: There aren't a multitude of solutions.
    ... My understdanding is there is more pushback than support

    fantasai: There are people who feel strongly about changing,
    I'd suggest to defer for now

    chaals: what fantasai said

    Jeff: I don't understand why we're leaving it open
    ... there was no consensus for changing it

    SteveZ: I wanted to close it on procedural ground that it's too
    big a change at this stage
    ... implementing it seemed too difficult a task to take on
    ... I tend to agree with fantasai this is something we should
    ask the AB about

    Mike: We can't finish if we can not resolve simple yes/no
    issues

    SteveZ: This isn't the case.
    ... Quick strawpoll:
    ... those who wish to close the issue

    Mike: close
    ... it can be brought up again
    ... we are not near consensus on it yet

    <chaals> [close it...]

    <jeff> [close it]

    fantasai: I think it's fine to close, but I think it's going to
    come up again

    Ralph: I'm not in favour of making a change at this time,
    ... nor in living it in raised state
    ... I support to close it
    ... or mark it as "postpone"

    Jeff: Close it, as I wrote in IRC.

    RESOLUTION: Close issue-54 as there was no consensus for
    changing Recommendation to Standard, acknowledging it will be
    raised again.

    close issue-54

    <trackbot> Closed issue-54.

issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section?

    issue-51?

    <trackbot> issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section? --
    open

    <trackbot>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51

      [18] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51

    SteveZ: I believe this is in the hand of the editor
    ... by separate email chaals agreed to take the action to
    implement issue-51

    chaals: Correct.

    Ralph: Now that fantasai is an editor, maybe she wants to draft
    some text.

    chaals: I'll shift the issue as "pending review" when there is
    something to review.

issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be
excessive overhead

    issue-50?

    <trackbot> issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's
    Calls can be excessive overhead -- open

    <trackbot>
    [19]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50

      [19] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50

    SteveZ: I'd propose to close when issue-51 is closed.

    chaals: It may or may not involve a Director's call. I think we
    already resolved this.

    SteveZ: It was my belief that this was a misunderstanding of
    how the new process was intended to work
    ... any objection to closing issue-50?

    Jeff: I don't object to closing issue-50, but I think there is
    a larger issue at play here
    ... which is that Art doesn't believe combining LC and CR is
    efficient
    ... quite the opposite
    ... does someone need to sit down with Art and getting him on
    board?

    SteveZ: I'm willing to do that.

    Jeff: Thank you.

    chaals: Art is happy to raise issues and I'm happy to talk to
    him. I agree, we need to answer the questions. +1 to someone
    talking to Art.
    ... Art is going to keep raising questions. And we need to
    answer till he runs out of questions

    <scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to get in touch with Art about issue-50
    and check assessment [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action0
    1]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Get in touch with art about
    issue-50 and check assessment [on Steve Zilles - due
    2013-12-09].

    SteveZ: My proposal it to close issue-50 in favour of issue-51
    ... since that's the one that will deal with the details that
    should do that
    ... Does anyone object?

    [no objection]

    close issue-50

    <trackbot> Closed issue-50.

    <Ralph> issue-50: SteveZ believes the resolution of issue-51
    will cover the concern of issue-50

    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-50 If LC and CR are combined,
    Director's Calls can be excessive overhead.

    RESOLUTION: Close issue-50 as the resolution of issue-51 will
    cover the concern of issue-50. Steve Zilles will get in touch
    with Art (who raised issue-50) to convince him that combining
    LC and CR is efficient.

issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured?

    issue-52?

    <trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed”
    encouraged/ensured? -- open

    <trackbot>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52

      [21] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52

    SteveZ: I was to draft some text...

    fantasai: I wrote on that issue as well as a few others just
    now
    ... We need best practices in some cases. I don't think that
    having a single label is the best, the new process gives you
    flexibility
    ... depending on what you're looking at, you're looking at
    different levels of "complete"
    ... and what is it that is complete, the design? etc. So a
    single label won't work.

    chaals: I agree with fantasai

    <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to tend to agree with Elika

    Ralph: I too agree with fantasai
    ... it's too soon to propose a single label
    ... I continue to look forward to reading a new proposal from
    fantasai on how to do that

    SteveZ: I understand what fantasai said
    ... maybe with her help, I can go back to David Singer (who
    raised the issue)
    ... as label depends on audience.

    Ralph: I'm hoping that your draft text for best practices will
    include bits on fine-grain

    <Ralph> Ralph: I think an overall label of "completeness" may
    be unnecessary if Fantasai produces the best practices I hope
    she will write on how editors document the state of specific
    sections of the document

    SteveZ: The one thing I see missing is the point that some
    groups only want to review once when it's done,
    ... How do we signal, how do we get to those groups?
    ... recognising that "done" may be different from one group to
    another.

    Mike: I think it's a cultural change that we have to make.
    ... If you want to make an impact on a spec, you have to review
    earlier.

    SteveZ: I think we're still in the process of debugging the
    horizontal process review.

    Ralph: I'm sympathetic to Mike's concerns, but I interpret the
    problem differently.
    ... When editors document the status of specific sections, the
    aggregation suggests a state of the whole document.
    ... If all the sections about which a reviewer cares are
    documented as "done" while other sections are documented as not
    quite done, they can do their review
    ... The magic for me lies in better documentation of individual
    pieces of a document.
    ... It will still be the case that some will start their review
    too late.
    ... I don't think Mike's problem is solvable with an overall
    status bit.

    Mike: Yes. These reviews have to be encouraged earlier in the
    process.
    ... It's a good thing to have a label to encourage wide review

    SteveZ: Besides a page for editors, we need a page for
    reviewers, to understand how to do this, and point from every
    spec
    ... How to use the signals within a document.
    ... We need to do a document for both editors, and reviewers.
    ... I guess we need to leave this issue open until we see a
    draft from fantasai
    ... But there is consensus to drop "single" in "single signal"
    ... Objection?

    Mike: What would replace "single"?

    SteveZ: Marking each section with a status

    Mike: I'd agree.

    issue-52: SteveZ: There is consensus to drop "single" in
    "single signal"

    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-52 How is satisfying “widely
    reviewed” encouraged/ensured?.

issue-70 -- Usage of "normative" needs clarification

    SteveZ: [reads from Art's issue raising] "To facilitate the
    reach and accessibility of this document (especially for
    non-English speakers) I think the term `normative` - when not
    used as a qualifier for "reference" i.e. "normative reference"
    - should be eliminated (or if it really can't be eliminated
    then define it)."
    ... He suggests to change "non-normative section" into
    "informative section", which makes sense to me.
    ... The terminology isn't used as it should be

    Ralph: I think he's making a different point
    ... the word "normative" is problematic and we should restrict
    its use to "normative reference"
    ... and he proposes alternatives for all the cases when we use
    "normative" in a different context.
    ... I'm not opposed to the suggestion

    SteveZ: Some of the corrections seemed worthwhile.
    ... His second suggestion is to "Define "normative reference"
    and point to the new policy."

    Jeff: Could someone do some archeology on why we used that
    phrase in the first place?

    SteveZ: I can send a note to Ian saying Art suggested the
    following changes, do you know any reason why they are not
    worth doing?

    <scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to write to Ian about issue-70 and if
    he knows any reason why Art's suggestions are not worth doing
    [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action0
    2]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Write to ian about issue-70 and
    if he knows any reason why art's suggestions are not worth
    doing [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-09].

    issue-70: see SteveZ's action-24

    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-70 Usage of "normative" needs
    clarification.

    <Ralph> [for example, now that Art calls my attention to it the
    sentence "A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of
    normative guidelines ..." seems to be saying something
    important and the word "normative" appears to be carrying a lot
    of weight. I support investigating whether there is a more
    clear way to say the important point here.]

Next meeting, next steps

    Stevez: [agrees with Jeff] Goal would be to have a new draft
    chapter 7 by mid to late January 2014

    Jeff: Looking at calendar, at the early March AB f2f, we need
    to look at a new draft.

    SteveZ: Next meeting: 16-Dec
    ... Thanks all.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to get in touch with Art about issue-50
    and check assessment [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action0
    1]
    [NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to write to Ian about issue-70 and if he
    knows any reason why Art's suggestions are not worth doing
    [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-w3process-minutes.html#action0
    2]

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([26]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-12-05 09:22:52 $

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



-- 
  Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 09:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC