W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2018

Re: DRAFT agenda for the next Process Call, September 12th 7am PDT (note time)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:50:34 -0700
Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <E19C2BB7-CDB7-4583-94B1-801F19324FAD@apple.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Looking at the Diff
<https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F%23contributor-license>

I am concerned that we should not fail to adopt these plausible improvements, because we didn’t do something larger. We can always do the larger thing when it’s ready; why should we not improve as we can?  Does every update have to be significant?

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 14:29 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/10/2018 5:50 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> Webex at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2018Sep/0000.html>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IRC is #w3process
>> 
>> Log of prior meeting at <https://www.w3.org/2018/08/15-w3process-minutes.html>
>> 
>> 
>> Usual meeting time: SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM
>> Yes, this is one week delayed.
>> 
>> 
>> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
>> 
>> 2) Review of Pull Requests that are pending, concentrating on those that address Process2019Candidate issues. ****We would like this to be the meat of the call.****
>> 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls>
>> 
>> 3) Review Process2019 Priorities, focusing on those that don’t have associated pull requests, but do have assignees (and asking why not):
>> 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+assignee%3A*+label%3AProcess2019Candidate>
>> 
>> Special focus on issues that HAVE a tentative conclusion in the discussion, converting that into an agreement for the editor to Pull Request.
>> 
>> No unassigned Process2019Candidate issues.
>> 
>> (There are no Assigned issues that are not also Process2019Candidate issues:
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3AProcess2019Candidate+assignee%3A*>)
>> 
>> 4) If we have time, new issues and updates.
>> 
>> 3.1) new since August call: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2018-08-14+>
>> 
>> 3.2) updated but not Process2019Candidate <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2018-08-14+-label%3AProcess2019Candidate>
>> 
>> 
>> 5) Next meeting. Theoretically Oct 10th.  I would like to back up one week as (a) we need to decide if we’re presenting this new process to the AC for ballot and we need to have time to prep and (b) I will be in Macau at an mpeg meeting.
> 
> My input is that we are not yet ready to take this to the AC.  Here are my reasons:
> 
> 1. We still have 11 items that identified as Process 2019 Candidates which are still open [1].  Given that we identified these as most important at the beginning of the exercise, there is too much open to call ourselves done.
> 
> 2. I could forgive ourselves for [1] if we had some really important way to improve standards making in Process 2019.  But I don't think we are there yet.  My favorite one, btw is Living or Evergreen Standards [2].  If we could make progress on that - it alone would justify a process Rev.
> 
> 3. The lack of a solution for Evergreen Standards is particularly painful.  First, it was opened over a year ago.  So we have had plenty of time to think about it.  Plus, there is an enormous amount of work that David and others have done on it [3].  Looking at a year of tremendous work - but no final proposal has me concerned.  I am concerned that we are prioritizing some easy successes - but never getting to something transformational.  My preference would be to appoint a dedicated task force to get Evergreen Standards done in a short period of time, and then declare ourselves done for Process 2019.
> 
> 4. Even if we decided that we are "good to go" with Process 2019 on October 3rd, there is a lot to do before proposing to the AC.  We would need AB approval; we should get W3M input; we should send it to the AC at least two weeks in advance of the meeting if we want a robust discussion.  The AB's attention is likely to be diverted to the Legal Entity and WHATWG topics adding to the time pressure.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+assignee%3A*+label%3AProcess2019Candidate
> 
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79
> 
> [3] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 6) Any other business.
>> 
>> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 23:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 12 September 2018 23:51:01 UTC