- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:12:47 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
The minutes and summary of today's Revising W3C Process Community Group
Teleconference are at:
http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html
Next meeting: Monday 3-Feb.
Text snapshot:
--------------
- DRAFT -
Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
27 Jan 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0025.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-irc
Attendees
Present
Coralie Mercier (scribe), Steve Zilles, Mike Champion,
Ralph Swick, Charles McCathie Nevile
Regrets
Chair
Steve Zilles
Scribe
Coralie Mercier
Contents and summary
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81
o The task force closed all resolved issues and set
issue-72 as pending review since chaals took the
action to move changes section earlier in
document.
2. [6]Discuss Issues 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 83 and 84
o [7]issue-75 -- How and to whom are transitions
announced?
Resolution: The TF believes that it is important
to announce new work to both the other W3C Groups
and the Public. The mechanisms used for
announcement are left up to the Team to determine
and should reflect current usage of announcement
mechanisms.
o [8]issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps?
Resolution: The TF resolved to change SHOULD to
MUST. Chaals took an action to make the setting
of expectations / next step in documents a must.
o [9]issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion
and wide review of rescindment request are
redundant
Resolution: The TF agreed that there is a
redundant step and resolved to drop the Should
bullet in 7.8.
o [10]issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize
process steps in their charters
Resolution: Charters are not the topic of Chapter
7. The TF agreed that an informative note can be
added that a Group should only be able to add to
this Process, not drop steps listed here.
o [11]issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation
Resolution: The TF resolved to reinstate a
Proposed Recommendation step that says that 4
weeks remain in the AC Review period and has no
other consequences.
3. [12]Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC
Review
o The editor will check references and dependencies
before presenting a completed proposal for review
at the March Advisory Board face-to-face meeting.
4. [13]Next meeting
o Monday 3-Feb.
[7] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/75
[8] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
[9] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
[10] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
[11] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
* [14]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2014
<koaliie> [15]Minutes and summary of previous (2014-01-13)
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0009.html
<scribe> scribe: Coralie
<scribe> scribenick: koalie
Complete closure of issues 56-58, 67, 70, 72, 81
SteveZ: issues 56-58 may have been implemented in the Jan. 21
draft
... I closed those
issue-67?
<trackbot> issue-67 -- Rather than change LC and CR, it seems
like it would be more effective to attack the cycle problem via
Education and Outreach -- closed
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/67
[16] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/67
SteveZ: I closed it and we opened issue-83 instead
issue-83
<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize
process steps in their charters -- open
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
[17] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
SteveZ: It was Jeff's request to close it with opening another
... Thanks Mike for the suggestion
issue-70?
<trackbot> issue-70 -- Usage of "normative" needs clarification
-- pending review
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/70
[18] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/70
SteveZ: This as been implemented as far as I can tell
Chaals: Yes, I implemented this quite a while ago
SteveZ: I'll close issue-70
issue-70: chaals: I implemented this quite a while ago
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-70 Usage of "normative" needs
clarification.
issue-72?
<trackbot> issue-72 -- Rationalising the definition of
different types of change -- pending review
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72
[19] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/72
SteveZ: You did implement that. The one suggestion that came up
was that you move the combined thing up to 7.2 section where
the other definitions are
... so people get to see it early
... and reference it back in 7.8
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to move changes section earlier in
document [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
1]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Move changes section earlier in
document [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-03].
issue-72: suggestion to move the combined thing up to 7.2 where
other definitions are and reference it back in 7.8
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-72 Rationalising the definition
of different types of change.
SteveZ: I left issue-72 as "pending" because of action-27
issue-81
<trackbot> issue-81 -- Opening of AC review -- pending review
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/81
[21] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/81
SteveZ: I noted you implemented that one too
... Closing that one too
issue-81: chaals implemented it too
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-81 Opening of AC review.
chaals: issue-59 has been implemented except "end game" split
as issue-57
SteveZ: Did we really resolve issue-57?
issue-57
<trackbot> issue-57 -- Avoid using the term "publishing" for
Editor's Drafts -- closed
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
[22] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
chaals: Yes
SteveZ: Found it in 7.2.1
... closing that one ...
issue-47
<trackbot> issue-47 -- What kind of changes can be "silently"
made to a document in /TR -- pending review
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/47
[23] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/47
SteveZ: Didn't we reject it?
chaals: We haven't made significant changes
... we agreed on the conditions under which we could make the
changes
SteveZ: other than clarifying the definition of change and
substantive changes, no other correction were made
issue-47: We rejected it, after agreeing on the conditions
under which we could make the changes. Other than clarifying
the definition of change and substantive changes, no other
correction were made
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-47 What kind of changes can be
"silently" made to a document in /TR.
Discuss Issues 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 83 and 84
SteveZ: 61 to 67 open for now
issue-75
<trackbot> issue-75 -- How and to whom are transitions
announced? -- pending review
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/75
[24] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/75
SteveZ: it's on my list for discussion.
... Chaals you said you felt calling out WGs
... Do these announcements go to chairs?
chaals: No
... practice should change to follow the process
[25]http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/
08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transi
tions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr
[25]
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr
[[In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has
been published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to
chairs@w3.org and the group's public mailing list. ]]
chaals: My proposal is to enforce the requirement better if we
are not doing it, and not change the process
... the point is to enforce it
Mike: my counter suggestion is, what problem are we trying to
solve
... and how to specify the announcement, or leave unspecified
and leave it to the group to do the right thing
... sending a message to a mailing list is not necessariy the
right thing
SteveZ: it just says "announce"
Mike: Leaving it to the discretion of the chair
SteveZ: The process says the Director announces to other W3C
groups and to the public.
Mike: We should encourage the Director collectively to not just
put it on the W3C homepage
... there are relatively few of us who follow the W3C homepage
... I agree with chaals, the team needs to figure out how to
make sure the proper audience gets notified
SteveZ: I added to tracker " mechanisms are left to the Team
and should be the current mechanisms"
... We're closing that one
RESOLUTION: issue-75: The TF believes that it is important to
announce new work to both the other W3C Groups and the Public.
The mechanisms used for announcement are left up to the Team to
determine and should reflect current usage of announcement
mechanisms.
issue-47?
<trackbot> issue-47 -- What kind of changes can be "silently"
made to a document in /TR -- pending review
<trackbot>
[26]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/47
[26] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/47
SteveZ: I forgot to close it... [closing]
... all pending review are dealt with
... that takes us to open issues
<Ralph> issue-74?
<trackbot> issue-74 -- Must specs describe next steps? -- open
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
[27] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
chaals: My suggestion is to use a MUST
SteveZ: Any objection?
... Resolved
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to make the setting of expectations /
next step in documents a must (ISSUE-74) [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
2]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Make the setting of expectations
/ next step in documents a must (issue-74) [on Charles McCathie
Nevile - due 2014-02-03].
RESOLUTION: issue-74: change SHOULD to MUST
issue-52
<trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying “widely reviewed”
encouraged/ensured? -- open
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
[29] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
SteveZ: You still have work to do on that one?
chaals: I don't see action related to issue-52
SteveZ: ... oh that's issue-77
chaals: Do we introduce some formal change? do we adopt Mike's
proposal of issue-83? do we decide that beyond addressing 83
we're not going to do anything more to the document. How to get
review is up to the WG and that they did demonstrate at
transition
SteveZ: I'm willing to close this one in favour of issue-83
chaals: Makes sense to me
issue-52: closing in favour of issue-83
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-52 How is satisfying “widely
reviewed” encouraged/ensured?.
SteveZ: So we closed issue-52
issue-76
<trackbot> issue-76 -- Requirement to document changes between
CR publications -- open
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/76
[30] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/76
chaals: I'd suggest that next we do this it be an action under
issue-77
issue-76: tied to issue-77
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-76 Requirement to document
changes between CR publications.
issue-78
<trackbot> issue-78 -- Requirements for public discussion and
wide review of rescindment request are redundant -- open
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
[31] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/78
chaals: Ian wants to simplify the requirements for rescinding
recommendation
... he says there's a redundant step
... if you clarify that WG makes request and the Director
decides
... I agree with the issue
... it takes a bit of shuffling of the text on rescinding
recommendation
... basically there's a statement that you can rescind on
public comment
... Ian's proposal is: The request may come from the WG and the
Director is to decide.
SteveZ: There may be no WG to rescind. In fact it's likely.
chaals: In the case where a request comes from a WG the
Director is likely to ask where the public comment is.
SteveZ: I agree
... You want to get rid of the "should" bullet?
chaals: Yes
SteveZ: Mike, Ralph?
[no comment]
RESOLUTION: issue-78 Drop the Should bullet in 7.8
issue-83
<trackbot> issue-83 -- Explicitly allow WGs to customize
process steps in their charters -- open
<trackbot>
[32]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
[32] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/83
chaals: Charters are not the topic of Chapter 7.
... I propose we add an informative note: Groups are welcome to
create their own additional procedures. A status of information
is available
... and I suggest we move the rest of that issue
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to put an informative note in saying
specific work items may have added custom process (ISSUE-83)
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
3]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Put an informative note in
saying specific work items may have added custom process
(issue-83) [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-02-03].
<Ralph> [a Group should only be able to add to this Process,
not drop steps listed here]
SteveZ: My preferred reason for sticking it in the charter is
because of charter review
... issue-83 goes from open to pending review
issue-84
<trackbot> issue-84 -- Reinstate Proposed Recommendation --
open
<trackbot>
[34]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
[34] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84
chaals: This is a blocker for issue-77, my proposal is to
reinstate Proposed Recommendation
SteveZ: doesn't trigger patent review, or anything?
chaals: It triggers a stop clock
SteveZ: another comment. An entry requirement is that the final
patent exclusion period has ended
chaals: the clock is there, the should requirement is there to
ensure you know what you're doing
SteveZ: I'm ok with a should.
RESOLUTION: issue-84: reinstate proposed recommendation that
says that 4 weeks remain in the AC Review period and has no
other consequences.
SteveZ: issue-84 is now pending review
Preparation of a Final Process Document for AC Review
SteveZ: We should be thinking about how to get to a full
document for review at the March AB f2f
... chaals said issue-77 will require a lot of work
... I'm going to be incommunicado most of February
chaals: I don't see any complication at all in checking
references and dependencies
Next meeting
SteveZ: Next meeting next Monday 3-Feb
chaals: Would it be annoying to hold that meeting one hour
later?
... nevermind, I can do it at this time
SteveZ: Thanks everyone
... adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to make the setting of expectations / next
step in documents a must (ISSUE-74) [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
2]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to move changes section earlier in
document [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
1]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to put an informative note in saying
specific work items may have added custom process (ISSUE-83)
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-w3process-minutes.html#action0
3]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([39]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-01-27 18:08:29 $
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[39] 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, 27 January 2014 18:13:02 UTC