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