- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:51:11 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
Dear AB, w3process CG,
The minutes and summary of the 1 January 2014 Revising W3C Process
Community Group Teleconference are at:
http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html
Next meeting: 27 January 2014 (No meeting next week; conflicts with AB
teleconference)
Text snapshot:
--------------
Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
13 Jan 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0008.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeff Jaffe, Coralie Mercier (scribe), Mike Champion,
Steve Zilles, fantasai
Regrets
Ralph Swick, Charles McCathie Nevile
Chair
Steve Zilles
Scribe
Coralie Mercier
Contents and summary
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Raised issues 56-80
o [6]issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C,
but with dependencies on a specification notified
of a pending LCCR?
It's not unreasonable for the process to require
some advance notice announcement before stepping
to LCCR and REC and leave to the Working Group to
figure out how.
The TF agreed with the proposed verbiage
suggested in the description of the issue.
RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review.
o [7]issue-57 -- Avoid using the term "publishing"
for Editor's Drafts
Nobody objected to the proposed resolution to use
"make available" instead of "publish".
RESOLUTION: moving issue-57 to pending review.
o [8]issue-58 -- Clarifying that implementation
experience is for specification being progressed
Nobody objected to the proposed resolution to
clarify section 7.2.4 is about "the current
specification".
RESOLUTION: moving issue-58 to pending review.
o [9]issue-60 -- Chapter 7 should be moved to
Github to encourage and facilitate contributions
to its evolution
The TF agreed that
# the current time-frame isn't compatible with
moving the draft to Github,
# that comments should therefore still be sent
to the CG mailing list,
# that the draft being already in a W3C
repository it should be easy to access for
someone in the W3C community,
# and chaals said in his e-mail already that
putting the draft on Github would generate
extra work.
RESOLUTION: issue-60 closed, not accepted.
o issue-61 through issue-64
RESOLUTION: move issue-[10]61, [11]62, [12]63 and
[13]64 to pending review, all will happen when we
publish a new document.
o [14]issue-65 -- Chapter 7: define stable and
unstable
RESOLUTION: Close issue-65 with reason: "The
normal English definition is adequate and given
where the usage occurs, either in non-mormative
or permissive contexts, even if two people
disagreed on the interpretation it would not have
significant consequence."
o [15]issue-66 -- Elimination of LC or combining LC
and CR creates new problems
Jeff suggested the issue isn't specific enough to
deal with, Steve added that the AB is willing to
consider input that comes later from practical
problems.
Mike made the specific suggestion to resolve this
issue by leaving an optional LC period and Steve
reminded him of the best practice to allow WG to
amend charters to put an optional LC.
RESOLUTION: Elika took an action to describe
experiment of getting "wide review", Mike will
raise a new issue. This issue is pending until
there is a new issue raised, or a proposal to
update the document.
2. [16]Next meeting
o Monday 27 January 2014
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/61
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/62
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/63
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/64
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/65
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/66
* [17]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2014
<koaliie> [18]summary and minutes of previous TF meeting
[2014-01-06]
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0007.html
<scribe> scribe: CoralieMercier
<scribe> scribenick: koalie
[meeting starts]
Raised issues 56-80
SteveZ: Let's go over
[19]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised
[19] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised
issue-56?
<trackbot> issue-56 -- How are groups outside the W3C, but with
dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? --
raised
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
[20] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
SteveZ: issue-55 may be an AB issue but not necessarily part of
the process
... re: issue-56, I raised it in response to Larry Masinter
... who felt if we have dependencies
... 1) identified dependencies, in which case WG is obliged to
notify
... [let me back up]
... Not sure the process requires a group notifies groups
listed in the dependencies section of the charter
... but it would be a good idea
... thoughts from others?
Jeff: I was on the queue before you started 56
... I'll answer your question
... Isn't this the issue we talked about a lot about what has
to be done for wide-review
... and how much we want to dictate in the process
... or leave it to WG?
... the former is what I thought we'd discussed
SteveZ: What I was concerned about is to ensure a group has
cleared its dependencies
... let me check that
fantasai: I think it's not unreasonable for the process to
require some advance notice before stepping to LCCR and REC
... up to the WG to figure out how
<fantasai> to make sure that that announcement is pretty
muchignored because everyone has reviewed the spec already
SteveZ: "A recommended practice" is what section 7.2.2 mentions
... What I think Larry was looking for is about the general
public
Jeff: There is specific verbiage on the 4th line which is
recommended as a replacement for the current language
... I have no objection for the proposed verbiage.
fantasai: That seems ok
Mike: That's OK
... at one time I had concerns but with this wording I'm not
concerned too much.
SteveZ: proposed RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review
<jeff> qq?
RESOLUTION: moving issue-56 to pending review
issue-57?
<trackbot> issue-57 -- Avoid using the term "publishing" for
Editor's Drafts -- raised
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
[21] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
SteveZ: the proposed resolution is to use "make available"
instead of "publish"
... any objection?
... hearing none, setting issue-57 to pending review
RESOLUTION: moving issue-57 to pending review
Jeff: these TF calls are less effective when the editor isn't
available
... I request the chair locates the editor
... and maybe we need to reschedule the time of that call
... Also we have an AB call next Monday
... we'll need to share a status with the AB
SteveZ: I accept the challenge
Mike: Do we adjourn until Chaals is on the call?
SteveZ: There are issues I think we can make progress on
... I meant to use the time to go over them
Jeff: I agree on the condition that when you catch up with
chaals you tell them what we decided
... so that we don't re-hash them next time
SteveZ: that would be my intent
Mike: WFM
SteveZ: I can't garantee that I'll get in touch with chaals
this week
issue-58?
<trackbot> issue-58 -- Clarifying that implementation
experience is for specification being progressed -- raised
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58
[22] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58
SteveZ: I raised this one about Bullet 2 of section 7.2.3
... I think this is out of date
... [the suggestion was to clarify this is about "the current
specification"]
... There is no 7.2.3 section anymore
Jeff: It appears to apply to 7.2.4
SteveZ: Yes
... any objection to clarify this is about "the current
specification"?
Mike: That's fine.
RESOLUTION: moving issue-58 to pending review
issue-60?
<trackbot> issue-60 -- Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to
encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution --
raised
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60
[23] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60
SteveZ: I know this is one chaals is positioned on and I agree
with
... Art Barstow said we should move the draft to github
... I don't think it will work with the time-frame we are
working on
... and comments should be done on the mailing list or during
these TF meetings
... I propose to close this issue
Mike: the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of
demand to work on this document, perhaps because this is not on
github
... on the other hand, if we were making these changes in a
github repo, we might no be waiting for chaals
... it is something to think about.
SteveZ: Chaals has already accepted Elika as a co-editor, and I
can help too
... Your observation is a good one
fantasai: It's in a repository at the W3C
... it should be fairly easy to access that for someone in the
community
... I don't see particular benefits in the [github] case
Jeff: I agree that we should close it
... I would like to note that chaals said in his e-mail that
putting the draft on github
... would generate extra work
RESOLUTION: issue-60 closed, not accepted.
issue-61?
<trackbot> issue-61 -- Move the Acknowledgements to a separate
Appendix at the end of the doc -- raised
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/61
[24] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/61
SteveZ: We can move the acknoledgement section to a separate
appendix but we're editing only chapter 7,
... so we could make that issue "pending review"
... thoughts on that?
... that is issue-61, 62, 63, 64
... all are things that will naturally happen when we publish a
revised process with revised chapter 7 in it
... I'd propose to mark these as pending review that will
happen when we publish a new document
... any objections?
[none]
RESOLUTION: move issue-61, 62, 63 and 64 to pending review, all
will happen when we publish a new document
issue-65?
<trackbot> issue-65 -- Chapter 7: define stable and unstable --
raised
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/65
[25] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/65
Jeff: do we know in which part of the document we use "stable"
or "unstable"?
<fantasai> [26]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/tip/tr.html
[26] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/tip/tr.html
fantasai: cf. chaals reply
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013De
c/0020.html
[27]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0020.html
<fantasai> "maximize consensus about the content of stable
technical reports"
[[ ISSUE-65 is about defining the terms "stable" and
"unstable". I believe
they are used in their normal sense and so definition is
unnecessary, and
propose closing the issue. ]]
<fantasai> "A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is
published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to
provide a stable reference for a document that is not intended
to be a specification requiring conformance"
[SteveZ reading from the draft]
<fantasai> "may request publication of a Working Draft even if
its content is considered unstable"
fantasai: I don't see a problem, I think we should close it
Jeff: we should explain the reason
SteveZ: I agree
<SteveZ> The reason for closing is: the normal English
definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either
in nonmormative or permissive contexts, even if two people
disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant
consequence
Jeff: yes
RESOLUTION: Close issue-65 with reason: "the normal English
definition is adequate and given where the usage occurs, either
in non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people
disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant
consequence"
issue-65: closing with reason "the normal English definition is
adequate and given where the usage occurs, either in
non-mormative or permissive contexts, even if two people
disagreed on the interpretation it would not have significant
consequence"
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-65 Chapter 7: define stable and
unstable.
issue-66?
<trackbot> issue-66 -- Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR
creates new problems -- raised
<trackbot>
[28]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/66
[28] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/66
Mike: wearing my AC hat on I don't know what position Microsoft
might have
... Resolving some of these issues by making LC optional and
mapping the process verbiage to make clear the patents and
disclosure requirements are triggered at CR or what we would
call the Last Call
... What an English speaking would understand by "last call"
SteveZ: Right now the proposal is that there are two years to
implement
... I'd reply to Art and Paul that we're not trying to rush,
but implement in a positive manner
... I think the AB is willing to consider input that comes from
practical problems
... I'm OK with closing this
... with Jeff's comment that it's not specific enough to deal
with
Mike: I'm making a specific suggestion that we resolve it by
leaving an optional LC period for people who run big
slow-moving WGs
... Overall I'm not interested to optimize the process for the
CSS WG, to pick one
... that knows how to make modular specs.
... We have other groups, such as TPWG
SteveZ: We discussed amending charters with expectations in
terms of LC
Mike: Thanks for reminding me of that
Jeff: Is that in the resolution of some issue?
SteveZ: It was suggested as a best practices
... Perhaps the best place is in the section about "wide
review"
Jeff: In my mind, if someone wants to raise an issue, there are
groups where LC is the right time
... an issue like that is valid for this TF to consider
... can we create and resolve issue-83 and point it in
issue-66?
issue-83?
<trackbot> Sorry, but issue-83 does not exist.
Jeff: We've had an extremely long conversation in the community
about why we want to change the process and the feedback is
that it's a good idea
... if some don't want to go in the direction of agility,
... I'm OK to acccommodating it,
... but not at the last minute
SteveZ: This came up at a last meeting, let me see..
Mike: OK, I'll raise an issue.
Jeff: If it's not part of the process if it's in the guidebook,
we have to agree to put it in the process first
SteveZ: I'm looking into December meeting minutes
Mike: Our original mission was to try and change the process to
improve it within the patent policy, and there's been
complexity
... We can give advice, but at the end of the day, we're
constrained by the patent policy
Mike: I'll file an issue and suggest this as a way of resolving
some of the concerns various people have raised.
SteveZ: the issue is specifically that we suggest to WG to put
an optional LC into their charter
fantasai: the issue is about review
... also, if this is about having a stage in developement to
get comments,
... then they can create that phase for them, and we need to
clearly label that phase
... we should be solving this as a more general case
... that of better labelling
... if groups could create their own labels, would it be
helpful to communicate this?
... other groups might decide on 3 @@@
... I don't think we should be changing the process document
... I think we do need to allow people to experiment
... It would be good if they can come up with useful labels
... and a given group can pick what they think might work for
them
<fantasai>
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013De
c/0012.html
[29]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0012.html
SteveZ: If I remember correctly, you accepted an action to
document this
fantasai: I don't recall, but I can try.
SteveZ: I propose to leave that issue open until we have a
clear statement of work happening
Jeff: what does that mean?
SteveZ: either till we get an issue-83
... or when we have a proposal to update the document
Jeff: Are we assigning an action?
SteveZ: I asked Elika
<scribe> ACTION: fantasai Describe experiment of wide-review
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html#action0
1]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Describe experiment of
wide-review [on Elika Etemad - due 2014-01-20].
Jeff: Is this to address issue-66?
SteveZ: That's fine with me
issue-66: see action-26 on elika to Describe experiment of
wide-review
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-66 Elimination of LC or
combining LC and CR creates new problems.
action-23: see issue-66 "Elimination of LC or combining LC and
CR creates new problems"
<trackbot> Notes added to action-23 Get in touch with art about
issue-50 and check assessment.
RESOLUTION: Elika took an action to describe experiment of
getting "wide review", Mike will raise a new issue. This issue
is pending until there is a new issue raised, or a proposal to
update the document.
Next meeting
SteveZ: no meeting next week because there's an AB one
... Next meeting is 27-Jan
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: fantasai Describe experiment of wide-review
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-w3process-minutes.html#action0
1]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [32]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([33]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-01-13 17:47:14 $
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[33] 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 Monday, 13 January 2014 17:51:24 UTC