- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:54:54 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Hi all,
The minutes and summary of the 3 February 2014 Chapter 7 Revision Task
Force teleconference are at:
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-minutes.html
No meeting next week 10-Feb (AB teleconference), next meeting likely
17-Feb.
Text snapshot:
--------------
Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
03 Feb 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-w3process-irc
Attendees
Present
Steve Zilles, Mike Champion, Coralie Mercier (scribe),
Charles McCathie Nevile
Regrets
Ralph Swick, Jeff Jaffe
Chair
Steve Zilles
Scribe
Coralie Mercier
Contents and summary
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81
o All issues closed subsequent to draft dated 2
February.
2. [6]Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
o [7]ISSUE-83: Explicitly allow WGs to customize
process steps in their charters -- PENDING
REVIEW, will be addressed in the next editor's
draft.
o [8]ISSUE-84: Reinstate Proposed Recommendation --
PENDING REVIEW, part of issue-77, see below.
o [9]ISSUE-6: Producing Recommendations when we
know they need to be refined -- POSTPONED, issue
is beyond the scope of the current Chapter 7
revisions.
o [10]ISSUE-69: Chapter 7: get Wide Review of
Chapter 7 from other SDOs -- CLOSED. Independent
SDOs do not review their proposed Process changes
with other SDOs and the Chapter 7 changes do not
reduce Review opportunities. Since our status as
a PAS submitter depends on our process, we should
get a review by ISO/IEC JTC 1 when we have a
complete revised Process Document.
o [11]ISSUE-79: Don't require republication after 6
months of no publication -- CLOSED with no change
to this document. It is proposed (by the Team)
that if the only change to a document is to
update its status, indicating why there has been
no update in 6 months, then Pubrules would allow
that to be done in place without generating a new
TR.
o [12]ISSUE-80: Publishing Note to end unfinished
REC should only be SHOULD -- from RAISED to OPEN.
The Task Force noted that the current text in the
2 February editor's draft covered the cases that
were actually likely to occur in practice. For
example, we have never had the Director tell a WG
to stop work on a given piece of work so how this
needs to be handled is not very important.
o [13]ISSUE-77: Clarify the process of moving from
CR to REC -- (includes issue-59, 84 and 76) The
Task Force discussion noted:
# change "repeat the full process of
publication" to "re-issue the publication"
and define a process for "re-issue"
# Require the approval of the Team Contact to
do the re-issue (and that is the only
approval required)
# Begin a new "Patent Exclusion Period" on the
new delta
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/6
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/69
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/77
* [14]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014
<koaliie> [15]Previous (2014-01-27)
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0026.html
<koalie> scribe: Coralie
<koalie> scribenick: koalie
Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81
issue-56?
<trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with
dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? --
closed
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
[16] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
SteveZ: I closed 56
... I closed issues after our last meeting
SteveZ: 56-58, 67, are closed
chaals: 72, 74, 78 are "pending review"
chaals: 83 and 84 are also pending review
... Want me to talk through what I did?
SteveZ: Yes.
issue 72?
issue-72?
<trackbot> issue-72 -- Rationalising the definition of
different types of change -- pending review
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72
[17] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72
chaals: 72: I moved the section defining changes to the earlier
definitions section, as agreed
issue-74?
<trackbot> issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps? --
pending review
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
[18] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
chaals: 74: Changed the "should document expectations of next
steps" to a must
... Current draft's date is 2 February
<koaliie> [19]Current draft
[19] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
chaals: 7.2.5 Classes of Changes
SteveZ: I closed issue-74
issue-78?
<trackbot> issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion and
wide review of rescindment request are redundant -- pending
review
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
[20] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
chaals: I removed the redundant requirement
Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
issue-83?
<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize
process steps in their charters -- pending review
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
[21] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
chaals: I wrote email explaining that I would address the part
of issue-83 relevant to this chapter in the next editor's draft
<koaliie>[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3proce
ss/2014Feb/0003.html
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0003.html
SteveZ: We'll leave that one pending.
issue-84?
<trackbot> issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation --
pending review
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
[23] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
chaals: part of issue-77
... and related to e-mail I sent
<koaliie>[24]Clarifying the steps from CR to Rec
[24]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0002.html
SteveZ: OK, we'll leave it pending.
<SteveZ> Item: 2. Discuss Issues 6, 69, 79, 80, 83 and 84
SteveZ: suggested ways to resolve outstanding issues
... I'd like to postpone 6
issue-6?
<trackbot> issue-6 -- Producing Recommendations when we know
they need to be refined -- raised
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/6
[25] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/6
chaals: I can live with postponing 6
... I think we need to deal with it, but maybe not immediately
SteveZ: We can bring it up next Monday's phone call
chaals: I can live with postponing.
SteveZ: OK
Mike: I'm not unhappy about it.
RESOLUTION: Issue-6: POSTPONED. This topic is beyond the scope
of the current Chapter 7 updates and revisions.
issue-69?
<trackbot> issue-69 -- Chapter 7: get Wide Review of Chapter 7
from other SDOs -- raised
<trackbot>
[26]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/69
[26] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/69
SteveZ: I think it's moot
... my proposed resolution for that was we notify SDOs of the
updated Process when we have a full draft
chaals: I think we should ensure ISO in particular is aware
Mike: Let's run it with the AB
SteveZ: Can I close it or do we want "pending review" on this
one?
Mike: We need to make sure the AB thinks about this
SteveZ: Chaals, OK with closing?
chaals: Yes, sure.
RESOLUTION: issue-69: CLOSE: Independent SDOs do not review
their proposed Process changes with other SDOs and the Chapter
7 changes do not reduce Review opportunities. Since our status
as a PAS submitter depends on our process, we should get a
review by ISO/IEC JTC 1 when we have a complete revised Process
Document.
issue-79?
<trackbot> issue-79 -- Don't require republication after 6
months of no publication -- raised
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
[27] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
SteveZ: The message trail has Ian writing it would be OK to not
require republication after 6 months
chaals: I would like an Updated status for a document on TR to
publishing a document on TR
SteveZ: If I accept your definition of publishing, I
understand. I'm not sure anybody reading this document would
catch on to that.
chaals: Propose something?
SteveZ: I don't want to overspecify "pubrules"
... if the only change is an update to status section, that can
be done in place.
chaals: We don't say what publishing or making changes in place
means
SteveZ: I can live with your interpretation
... Closed.
RESOLUTION: issue-79: CLOSED with no change to this document.
It is proposed (by the Team) that if the only change to a
document is to update its status, indicating why there has been
no update in 6 months, then Pubrules would allow that to be
done in place without generating a new TR.
issue-80?
<trackbot> issue-80 -- Publishing Note to end unfinished REC
should only be SHOULD -- raised
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
[28] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
SteveZ: Must turn work into a note. Chaals said you can't put
that on a WG because the likely cause is that the WG
disappeared
... I suggested that someone has to declare the work unfinished
... There is nothing in 7.3.2
... How about we say "The Working Group, or the W3C Team, MUST
publish the document as a Working Group Note" with appropriate
status?
Mike: So after a certain amount of time the MUST must be clear
chaals: the WG has a SHOULD, while active
Mike: any kind of timeline when the group is active?
chaals: Before next transition
Mike: So it's a MUST on the Team
... does the current process say anything about it?
chaals: I don't think the current process says anything at all
about it.
Mike: The proposal is to make it a MUST on the Team and a
SHOULD on the WG?
SteveZ: Yes
Mike: OK.
SteveZ: "The Working Group SHOULD, or the Team MUST" is my
current wording
chaals: If the Director wants a WG to stop, he closes the WG
and accepts the responsibility of publishing unfinished work on
behalf of the team.
SteveZ: In the case not covered, I wanted to add "W3C team MUST
publish the document as a WG Note"
chaals: Someone should, otherwise someone has to.
... If you add "W3C MUST" then you can take out "Working Group
SHOULD". But I don't think that is a good idea
... the responsibility is a SHOULD, and we should leave it with
the Working Group.
SteveZ: My problem is that the way I read Ian's note, he's not
complaining about the Team having the responsibility, but the
difference between a WG that closes and the Director requiring
a WG to discontinue.
... We can leave this for discussion next Monday.
chaals: I don't know many cases when the Director has required
a WG to stop a particular work item while continuing. I don't
think there is a real problem to be solved and don't think the
nice symmetry in process is worthwhile for this issue
Mike: [yeah]
SteveZ: Changing issue-80 from RAISED to OPEN
issue-77?
<trackbot> issue-77 -- Clarify the process of moving from CR to
REC -- open
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/77
[29] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/77
chaals: issue-77 includes issue-59, 84 and 76
... I'd like to see feeback on my proposal
<koaliie> [30]Clarifying the steps from CR to Rec
[30]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0002.html
chaals: My recommendation is to require Team approval
... delegated to the Team contact
SteveZ: Do we agree that substantive changes require a new
patent exclusion period?
Mike: It requires wide review certainly
chaals: section 7.4
... the PP isn't clear about what the exclusion opportunity
covers
... We should let it sit and request some sense from the PSIG -
not because it would change what we will do here since it makes
no real difference to what goes in the process here, but
because clarity would be helpful
... It would certainly most always trigger a new exclusion
opportunity
<scribe> scribenick: SteveZ
SteveZ: Changes are:
... 1. change "repeat the full process of publication" to
"re-issue the publication" and define a process for "re-issue"
... 2. Require the approval of the Team Contact to do the
re-issue (and that is the only approval required)
... 3. Begin a new "Patent Exclusion Period" on the new delta
<koalie> scribenick: koalie
chaals: I think we require the Director's approval but this is
largely delegated
... Requiring the Team contact approval, a) it doesn't happen
anywhere else
SteveZ: I'm fine with that
chaals: We should not prescribe a new patent exclusion period,
but provide a pointer to the Patent Document and note that an
exclusion may arise as a result of new publication
SteveZ: We're overtime.
... Out of politeness, we should do a disposition of comment
document
... Those are best done in Text files in the CSS WG
chaals: Issue tracker tracks the comments
SteveZ: ... notifying those who raised issues to see if they
accept the resolution
<chaals> koalie++ #scribing a rambling conversation like this
on dodgy connections
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([32]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-02-04 08:51:09 $
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[32] 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 Tuesday, 4 February 2014 08:55:05 UTC