[minutes] 19 February 2014 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

Hi all,

The draft minutes of today's Revising W3C Process Community Group  
Teleconference are at:

I was unable to work on a summary this time.


Text snapshot:

           Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
                            19 Feb 2014

    See also: [2]IRC log
       [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/19-w3process-irc

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

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Confusion between 7.4 CR and 7.4.1 Revising a CR
          2. [5]Section 7.5 PR seems to say that we still MAY
             remove features
          3. [6]Any other concern?
          4. [7]Next steps
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 19 February 2014

    <koaliie> [9]Minutes and summary of 3 February 2014 Chapter 7
    Revision Task Force teleconference


    <scribe> scribe: CoralieMercier

    <scribe> scribenick: koalie

    [chaals has audio only]

    Jeff: purposes of the call today

    <Ralph> [Ralph: regrets -- conflicting meeting]

    Jeff: We want to have a TF report to the AB for the F2F meeting
    on March 4-5
    ... In order to issue a second last call of the document to the
    ... We should agree on that.
    ... Also there are a bunch of issues that chaals has addressed
    and are pending review
    ... Are we comfortable closing them all?
    ... From the TF today (Mike, Chaals and myself), are we
    comfortable with closing the issues?
    ... I haven't seen complains from others in the TF (SteveZ and

Confusion between 7.4 CR and 7.4.1 Revising a CR

    Jeff: re: my issues with Revising CR and revising PR, chaals
    revised that but I am not yet convinced

    chaals: I saw your e-mail



    chaals: There are 2 issues
    ... revising CRs and publishing revised CRs
    ... you pointed an issue that is valid
    ... and wondered if two sections are necessary
    ... Ian asked the same question
    ... I think we do
    ... this was a piece of issue-59


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


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

    Chaals: Fantasai raised issue-59
    ... the process is very similar but is not the same
    ... so it's useful to know what it takes to know how to publish
    a revised CR

    Jeff: If you are laborious as to have them in separate
    sections, I think we need to be really laborious and add what
    the Director needs to do, etc.
    ... I wouldn't object, if that were your editorial decision,
    but it would have to be complete.

    chaals: That would be my editorial decision
    ... The review is ongoing, we would have to say the document

    Jeff: Another question:
    ... Would publishing a revised CR also trigger an additional

    chaals: It typically does, it's addressed in the draft.
    ... Beyond removing things at risk, you're likely to trigger a
    CfE, hence you need the Director's decision.

    Jeff: This is why I think the lack of parallel instructions is
    ... As it's covered by the Patent Policy, the info there is is

    chaals: It's a normative patent requirement
    ... I'll continue that

    Jeff: I'm fine with this in 7.4, but not in 7.4.1

    chaals: I'm not sure what's missing

    Jeff: the lack of parallel instructions is confusing
    ... In 7.1 you have a declarative statement
    ... in 7.4.1 it's part of a discussion.

    chaals: It doesn't create a CfE
    ... formally that call belongs to the team contact who's
    supposed to make the call
    ... it's not necessarily the case that even with substantive
    changes a revised CR will trigger a CfE.
    ... Would you like this statement to be stronger?
    ... What statement would you like?

    Jeff: I don't know; totally confused now.
    ... In 7.4.1, the reason you're explaining why we need a
    revised CR is because of a trigger of CfE
    ... and now you're telling me it doesn't necessarily.

    chaals: We could copy and paste the text from the Patent
    Policy; Ian's preference is to refer and link.

    Jeff: the text says if there are substantive changes made, you
    need a Director's decision to publish a revision because this
    will be an exclusion opportunity.
    ... and if it might not?

    chaals: Section 4 of the patent policy describes this.
    @@@@missed the start of point.

    Jeff: I'll leave it up to your editorial decision, if you can
    find a way to clarify this

    <scribe> ACTION: chaals to amend 7.4.1 to add actions that need
    to be taken upon revising a CR including the requirement that
    the Diretors announces publication to W3C groups and the
    public. [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Amend 7.4.1 to add actions that
    need to be taken upon revising a cr including the requirement
    that the diretors announces publication to w3c groups and the
    public. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-26].

Section 7.5 PR seems to say that we still MAY remove features

    Jeff: Did you see my confusion about 7.5

    chaals: To get from CR to PR, it's ok to publish with features
    at risk
    ... WG may remove features at risk in CR w/out republishing a
    revised CR

    Jeff: Why is that bullet in 7.5? it is already in 7.4 and 7.4.1

    chaals: You can do it in CR, it's the practice

    Mike: It seems we're keeping PR in its form
    ... in the new process PR was just a 30-day warning on AC

    chaals: This is analogous to revising a CR
    ... the practice is if it's the last revision of CR, you won't
    publish an updated CR if you publish a PR the next day
    ... PR is basically carved in stone.
    ... In the transition, the one class of substantive change
    allowed is drop things that were already marked at risk
    ... It's not a full blown PR @@@
    ... You don't have to publish a CR and a PR to @@@@

    Mike: I understand

    Jeff: There are other changes as well
    ... I don't mind that we reintroduce PR, but it's different in

    Mike: What we came up with is not dramatically simpler than the
    current process.
    ... Major innovation is allowing AC review much earlier in the

    Jeff: The 4th bullet of 7.5 PR [Jeff reads]
    ... CR review hasn't possibly closed when we enter PR

    chaals: Yes. CR reviews are defined.

    Jeff: Is that different from the AC review?

    chaals: Yes

    Mike: What's the difference then?

    chaals: They're different reviews
    ... in 7.4 CR has a deadline for comments
    ... you might accept late comments for some reasons
    ... this happens in reality but not frequently
    ... either you fix spec or convince Tim you don't need to

    Mike: The existing process says you can get around for 5
    months, and this is what we're trying to address.
    ... in 5 months the world has moved on
    ... look at the shadow DOM kerfuffle

    chaals: This requirement ensures a decision is based on each
    comment received

    Mike: You've convinced me, thank you.

Any other concern?

    Jeff: Mike, any other concern?

    Mike: I'm mildly dissatisfied with the way we put one sentence
    in the intro that new steps can be added in the chartering
    ... Chap7 doesn't talk about chartering
    ... When do we address the rest of the Process?
    ... This round is focused only about Chap7?
    ... The sentence is at the bottom of 7.1 as I recall
    ... That was in response to complains by Paul and I
    ... I wonder if it's sufficient genuflexion to the concerns

    Jeff: They wanted to adopt tighter processes?

    chaals: So long as it doesn't conflict with the Process, go for
    ... Will we address things outside Chap7? Jeff said no, focus
    is on Chap7 for now.
    ... I'm ready to make proposals for those
    ... but we need to finish Chap 7 first.

    Jeff: I don't understand what Paul's comment have to do with
    Chapter 7

    chaals: Half-fixed. We ruled out of scope for Chapter 7.

    Mike: Paul's problem is that for major cat-herding like HTML
    and TP, LC is a valuable mechanism
    ... in Shenzhen, Paul proposed LC is optional
    ... Our proposal to make it explicit that WG can update their
    charters to meet certain needs
    ... Perhaps an extra sentence to explain might be appropriate.

    Jeff: I'd use this as a Chapter 7 issue. If the community
    wanted to have spelled out
    ... that there's a concept of LC
    ... and this is how it works, and this is optional,
    ... that would be in chapter 7, not in chapter 5
    ... I don't accept that the restriction from the Team is that
    we're only doing Chapter 7.
    ... My impression overall was that the community had rejected
    that requirement.

    Mike: I agree
    ... I'm happy to tell Paul to move on

    chaals: Paul can chime in at last call

    [fantasai arrives]

    Mike: It might be worth to add to the sentence and provide
    ... It would be a small change that could address Paul's

    Jeff: I'd suggest you write again to Paul that the current
    consensus is to address the issue with this sentence,
    ... that it's going to AB approval, and that he should speak
    soon lest it's too late to raise it again.

    chaals: Last Call means many things to many people.
    ... To a11y, means forcing group to address a11y issues before
    going to CR.
    ... To some other groups, means "we think we're done, want to
    make sure".
    ... To HTML, means "please review this document".
    ... Point of not having LC is to not have all these differing

    Jeff: fantasai, do you have any comment?

    fantasai: From the last time I looked, main concern I had was
    not understanding why a group would ship CR, since it's easier
    to keep in WD form
    ... CR is a signal to the world in the current Process

    chaals: We introduced a section on revising CR
    ... to back-up fantasai's comment,
    ... The bar for revision is higher. Assumption is you want to
    get to Rec.
    ... You go to CR because you want to go to Rec
    ... You don't want to be revising and revising CR
    ... You're not speculating. Some groups will.

    fantasai: in CSS WG we use CR as the signal to the wider
    community that the spec is stabilizing.
    ... I haven't looked enough to make further intelligent

Next steps

    Jeff: Now, even after we say we're done, it will go for AC
    ... and there will be opportunity to go back
    ... Do we need to meet again before the AB meeting?

    chaals: I'd send a call for consensus about the proposed
    resolutions for issues
    ... and in a week, I'd send declare consensus and call the

    Jeff: OK, I'll wait till you push a draft tonight
    ... and send a call for consensus tomorrow.
    ... Any other comment? question? before we adjourn for today?


    Jeff: Thanks all
    ... Next actual conversation will take place at the AB f2f
    ... fantasai, it is on the West Coast
    ... if you would like to join, I invite you as a member of this
    ... Tuesday Mar 4 at 8:30 am in SF

    fantasai: I can't object to the time and location. Thanks.


Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: chaals to amend 7.4.1 to add actions that need to
    be taken upon revising a CR including the requirement that the
    Diretors announces publication to W3C groups and the public.
    [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([15]CVS log)
     $Date: 2014-02-19 18:08:50 $

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [15] 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 Wednesday, 19 February 2014 18:14:09 UTC