W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > January 2014

[minutes] and summary of 13 January 2014 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

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>
Message-ID: <op.w9mzvl02svvqwp@sith.local>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC