[minutes] and summary of 6 January 2014 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

Dear AB, w3process CG,

The minutes and summary of the 6 January 2014 Revising W3C Process  
Community Group Teleconference are at:

Next meeting: 13 January 2014.

Text snapshot:

           Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
                              06 Jan 2014

    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/06-w3process-irc

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


      * [4]Topics

          1. [5]Propose closing issue 39
                o The Task Force resolved to close issue-39 with
                  the text Ralph Swick sent. Jeff Jaffe will raise
                  two separate issues to edit sections 7.4 and
                  7.5.1 so as to clarify that an AC review starts
                  upon entering candidate recommendation, clarify
                  the conditions and meaning of "provisional

          2. [6]Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization
                o The Task Force agreed to ask the Editor to make
                  the combination of change as described in

          3. [8]Discuss raised issues
                o The Task Force discussed a conflict between
                  sections 7.3.1 and 7.2.2 about maturity levels
                  and what criteria apply. Jeff Jaffe also noted
                  that section 7.5.2 mentions a testing
                  requirement, but 7.4 doesn't have it. SteveZ
                  suggested a quick fix; merging bullet 2 and 6, in
                  section7.5.2, perhaps with an "e.g."

      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 06 January 2014

    <koaliie> [10]Previous (2013-12-16)

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html

    <scribe> scribe: Coralie

    <scribe> scribenick: koalie

    <SteveZ> agenda:


Propose closing issue 39


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


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

    Jeff: During the break, I had an opportunity to do a fairly
    extensive review of the revisions; sent comments to chaals
    ... In terms of closing issue-39, I don't recall if I've
    reviewed it or it it's something else

    SteveZ: The text was published on 2-Dec

    <SteveZ> Text for issue 39:


    SteveZ: People seemed to be happy with it when we discussed it
    at the 16-Dec call

    <koaliie> [14]16-Dec Call discussion of issue-39

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html#item01

    Mike: I'm OK, it's what we agreed on last time we talked.

    Jeff: On re-reading the new process, I learned that when we
    enter candidate rec, there's an AC review
    ... I was surprised because you don't say that anywhere
    ... There's a section 7.4 called Candidate Recommendation
    ... in it it says AC reps can appeal, but nowhere does it say
    there is a review.

    SteveZ: OK.
    ... I thought it did at one time; I tend to agree, looking at
    it now.

    Jeff: I have a variety of questions
    ... including one with starting the review at candidate rec
    ... we should state it, if we want the AC review to start at
    Candidate Rec
    ... "provisional approval" is mentioned, but what are the
    conditions? when does that happen?

    SteveZ: It doesn't even say who makes the request for
    provisiional approval

    Jeff: Further, it should be implicit that a group should close
    things, namely AC review, in order to publish under the new
    ... So I don't know if that belongs to issue-39
    ... but I'd be hesitant to close it until I had a chance to
    have a dialogue with chaals

    SteveZ: My first choice would be to fix 7.4 so we clearly start
    an AC review
    ... and 7.1 so it's clear what starts a provisitional approval
    ... and that 39 stays the way it is.
    ... 39 is just a transition document
    ... not necessarily part of the process, at some point it
    ceases to have value.
    ... I think you should raise the two issues we talked about;
    they are important.
    ... I'm not sure what happened there; I'm reasonably sure
    chaals is on board with that.

    Jeff: Yes.
    ... he confirmed it was the intent.
    ... but then I did a more complete review and noticed these
    ... The problem as I see it: If you send a document at CR and
    features are dropped, the AC wouldn't know about it.

    SteveZ: 7.5.1 documents that

    Jeff: I see that, what's missing is the meaning of "provisional
    approval" (not dropping features)

    Mike: Let's not reinvent what a Proposed Recommendation is.

    SteveZ: The change is subtle
    ... Provisional approval is when the Director says this really
    is the LC and you have 28 days to raise and close an issue
    ... the attempt is to say that the AC review starts at CR and
    ends 28 days after LC.

    Jeff: Yes, so long as it's clearly documented.

    Mike: How is that different from PR status?

    SteveZ: PR starts AC Review

    Mike: I agree with the substance of the change that AC review
    is welcome at LCCR (or whatever we call it these days)

    <fantasai> Mike++

    Mike: we have a dilemma: keeping familiar words or creating
    words that sound different but are so similar
    ... Is that change worth the confusion it causes?

    Fantasai: One thing to notice is that we're giving a heads-up
    on things not meant to change and you have 4 weeks to object
    ... we have the exact same thing at WD to CR where we want to
    give heads-up
    ... I agree to not have a different W3C status, we should be
    treating them the same in the Process

    Mike: I've liked the philosophy all along of signaling and
    making things explicit

    Jeff: To support some of Mike's points with the provisional
    approval notion, it's not just a change of name, we're also
    asking the Director to jump in the middle of the process at CR
    ... Somewhere in the middle the Director is to give his
    provisional approval and we're still in CR

    SteveZ: I'm ambivalent on that. Chaals had strong feelings. It
    might be a topic to take up with the full AB.

    Jeff: The more immediate problem is to fix the text.

    SteveZ: +1
    ... Do we know when chaals is back from vacation?

    fantasai: He sent an e-mail
    ... but I got the date wrong, nevermind.

    SteveZ: Jeff, if you could submit the issues, that would be
    ... about what needs to go in 7.4 and 7.5.1

    Jeff: Yes.

    SteveZ: Let's go back to issue-39...
    ... If we fix 7.4 and 7.5.1, your issue isn't an issue because
    the process will tell you what to do
    ... Do we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text Ralph

    [no objection]

    RESOLUTION: we have agreement to close issue-39 with the text
    Ralph sent

    close issue-39

    <trackbot> Closed issue-39.

    issue-39: CHAP7 TF agreed to close issue-39 with Ralph's text


    <trackbot> Notes added to issue-39 Managing the transition to a
    new TR cycle.

Review Revised Chapter 7 Organization

    [discussion of classes of changes and substantive change]

    SteveZ: I'll ask chaals to make a combination of change as
    described in
    ... With chaals not on this call, it doesn't make sense to take
    up topic 4 "Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC
    ... Jeff, does it make sense to discuss the 16 issues you


Discuss raised issues

    <koaliie> [17]Raised issues

      [17] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised

    Jeff: In 7.3.1 and 7.2.2 conflict @@

    [discussion about maturity levels and what criteria apply]

    Jeff: in 7.5.2 talks about testing requirement, but 7.4 doesn't
    have testing requirement

    SteveZ: 3rd bullet in 7.4
    ... "must document how adequate implementation experience will
    be demonstrated,"
    ... 7.5.2 has two similar statements that could be combined
    ... bullet 2 and 6

    Jeff: If testing isn't required, bullet 6 in 7.5.2 shouldn't
    mention it.
    ... I'm raising the issue.

    SteveZ: It's a valid issue.
    ... a possible quick fix is merging bullet 2 and 6, perhaps
    with an "e.g."
    ... Anything else for this call?
    ... Thanks all, and thanks Jeff for this extended review.
    ... next meeting 13-Jan

    trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([19]CVS log)
     $Date: 2014-01-07 11:15:31 $

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [19] 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, 7 January 2014 11:17:48 UTC