[minutes] 2013-10-28 Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference

Dear all,

The minutes of the Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference this  
Monday are available:

A text snapshot follows; the summary per topic is included in the  
"Contents" section.


              Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference
                               28 Oct 2013

    These minutes are public. Some links may be AB-only.

    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/28-w3process-irc

           Steve Zilles, Mike Champion, Jeff Jaffe, Ralph Swick,
           Coralie Mercier
           Charles McCathie Nevile
           Steve Zilles
           Ralph Swick, Steve Zilles, Coralie Mercier

      * [4]Topics

          1. [5]Issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR

             Ralph Swick took an action item to draft a message to
             the Chairs asking them to think about and prepare to
             share thoughts on the transition plan.

          2. [6]Plan next steps, especially processing comments on
             the Last Call draft

             The task force converged on the need to hold
             additional breakouts at TPAC, including that beyond
             what the process is, and what the definitions are, we
             are thinking about things differently, and want to
             communicate what we're doing and give the TPAC
             participants time to learn about what's going on.

      * [7]Summary of Action Items

    <Ralph> [8]previous 21-Oct

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-w3process-minutes.html

    <inserted> scribenick: Ralph

Issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle


    <trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR
    cycle -- open


       [9] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

    SteveZ: Wayne Carr's mail from 2 weeks ago was the last comment
    I'm aware of



    Jeff: I'd also like to discuss the plan for TPAC to be sure we
    don't miss the opportunity to communicate what we're doing and
    give the TPAC participants time to learn about what's going on

    SteveZ: Mike proposed a simpler version from Ralph's
    ... but did not have a forcing function
    ... Wayne added an 18-month deadline

    SteveZ: that seems controversial; in our previous discussions
    there was no support for a deadline

    <inserted> scribenick: SteveZ

    Ralph: deadlines can be arbitrary
    ... would groups like CSS be confused by having docs in
    parallel in different processes?
    ... how would groups feel about the process change?

    <inserted> scribenick: Ralph

    Ralph: [asks Steve for his perspective on what the CSS WG is
    likely to prefer]

    [Coralie joins]

    <koalie> scribenick: koalie

    SteveZ: Groups mumble about the difficulty of creating a
    ... basic undertone to the extisting process
    ... Trying to figure out which process any given document is
    following where there is a large number of document seems
    ... I'm not sure whether everybody in the WG would agree
    ... Editors object to what doesn't bring the document forward
    ... your concern is accurate, but having the group delay it
    actually makes things worse overall

    Ralph: I specifically asked your impression for what would work
    for the group
    ... You say the CSS WG would @@2

    SteveZ: Yes
    ... Chaals is in the other group that would have a large number
    of documents to convert. [chaals sent regrets for today]

    Mike: If HTML isn't done in a year, serious questions will be
    ... I understand the point; David Singer made a point on the AC
    forum, if we told forget about LC, that would be a bad thing. I
    understand David's point.
    ... Forcing people concerns me
    ... Let's set a deadline that is far enough in the future
    ... For others, let's encourage everybody to move ahead.
    ... Remember the Director can always make exceptions.

    Jeff: I have raised issue-39, and shared concern if a group
    were driving all of their effort towards LC, and all of a
    sudden they were told that there is no LC; instead they need to
    drive to LCCR and demonstrate wide review - something that they
    had never planned on doing before getting to LC.
    ... We would benefit by having a couple of breakout at TPAC to
    talk about the process
    ... issue-39 could be a disctinct breakout


    <trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR
    cycle -- open


      [11] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

    Jeff: We don't have to decide today

    <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to react to and agree with Mike

    Ralph: There's a lot of merit to the proposal
    ... I generally agree with Mike's assertion
    ... Groups should want to switch to new process as early as
    possible if we did things right
    ... I'm very reluctant to impose that as a top-down directive
    ... I'm speculating on circumstances, but even in Wayne's
    proposal, I could imagine a WG @@3
    ... I would like to hear more perspective from WG chairs on
    adoption window
    ... And discuss in a breakout, for example, why they would
    adopt or not in a short amount of time.

    SteveZ: The main reason it's useful to have this discussion is
    to send a strawman to chairs with what we're thinking and some
    of the alternatives
    ... so they can discuss in their groups before TPAC
    ... I'd be happy with a short list and a few questions, such as
    ... "how would you WG feel about converting?" "how would you
    feel about a deadline?"

    Ralph: I'd be happy to draft a message to Chairs with a more
    general question "What would prevent you to adopt in

    <Ralph> Ralph: what barriers would interfere with your adopting
    in [$1\47], [$1\47], [$1\47] months? What enticements would
    encourage you to adopt this in [$1\47], [$1\47] months?

    SteveZ: A lot of persons do not understand what we have done
    and probably equally why we have done it.

    SteveZ: It does not close issue-39, but a good next step would
    be having Ralph draft a message to the chairs
    ... I think it's useful to include some of the messaging from
    Mike and Wayne for new groups

    Ralph: Absolutely.

    <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to draft message to chairs [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Draft message to chairs [on
    Ralph Swick - due 2013-11-04].

    <Ralph> trackbot, associate action-15 with issue-39

    <trackbot> action-15 (Draft message to chairs) associated with

    SteveZ: issue-39 is still open but at least we have a plan

Plan next steps, especially processing comments on the Last Call

    Jeff: I suspect that in the half-hour on Wednesday, you should
    be able to tell more about what and why we have done
    ... This conversation should demonstrate that issue-39 can be a

    SteveZ: I'm happy to lead a breakout on Q&A on the overall plan
    ... I don't know whether chaals does, who's also leading a
    breakout on chairing.

    <koalie> [13]TPAC breakout suggestions

      [13] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2013/SessionIdeas

    SteveZ: My goal was to try and give a summary similar, with
    more details, of the process that led us up to making the
    ... and then let chaals describe what changes he made
    ... and why

    Jeff: We should find a way to acknowledge the tremendous amount
    of work he did

    SteveZ: I haven't seen a number of comments today
    ... The date you picked (27 Nov) was fine
    ... Giving people two weeks after TPAC is fine

    Jeff: We also resolved on 1 Jan. as implementation date.

    Ralph: There are two action items we can close

    <Ralph> action-14?

    <trackbot> action-14 -- Steve Zilles to Draft the cover letter
    that will do with last call draft -- due 2013-10-28 -- OPEN


      [14] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/14

    <Ralph> action-14 closed

    <trackbot> Closed action-14.

    <Ralph> action-10?

    <trackbot> action-10 -- Ralph Swick to Write text to address
    issue-39 -- due 2013-10-07 -- OPEN


      [15] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/10

    <Ralph> action-10 closed

    <trackbot> Closed action-10.

    Ralph: Action-10 is complete and new action-15 is a follow-up
    to it.

    <Ralph> action-13?

    <trackbot> action-13 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Reply to
    ivan on issue-47 -- due 2013-10-28 -- OPEN


      [16] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/13

    <Ralph> action-13 closed

    <trackbot> Closed action-13.

    SteveZ: I don't believe we had any new open issues, it's just 3
    and 39

    Jeff: Some of the statements can be interpreted and may lead to
    issues. Might have to convince AC reps to turn comments into
    issues, for later.

    SteveZ: David Singer has been asking for a label for a document
    being circulated for "wide review". He was concerned that
    reviewers not be told, "there are too many implementations to
    make that change now." The problem with this is that the new
    process is encouraging early implementation (and testing) and
    that means that reviews need to happen on parts of the
    specification that are maturing when they mature.
    ... Status section should inform reviewers what these parts are
    and the reviewers should look at it
    ... And I don't know how to convey that

    <Ralph> issue-33: see "Director's considerations when
    evaluating normative references" [Ralph 18-Oct] in


    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-33 Normative Reference "policy"
    is blocking IP commitments from becoming final.

    <Ralph> issue-33:

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references

    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-33 Normative Reference "policy"
    is blocking IP commitments from becoming final.

    Jeff: This is what I meant when I said we need at TPAC to
    really explain what is going on.
    ... It's not only what the process is, and the definitions are.
    We are thinking about things differently.

    SteveZ: Thanks for that clarification.

    SteveZ: The process changes are only the formalized part of the
    change we are advocating, we need to also convey the informal
    intent to be more flexible and agile in our presentation at
    ... Hearing no other business. Thanks very much.

    Ralph: I want to coordinate with chaals and will start drafting
    that chairs message.

    SteveZ: I'm not sure we have a need for a meeting next week.

    <Ralph> Ralph: regrets for next week

    <jeff> regrets for next week, in transit

    Jeff: I won't be available either next week

    SteveZ: [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ralph to draft message to chairs [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([21]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-10-30 12:24:31 $

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

  Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
mailto:coralie@w3.org +33643220001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 12:38:23 UTC