- all
Unfortunately I will probably be unable to attend this week. I'll read the minutes when they are posted, and prepare a new draft based on any resolutions recorded.
Comments on each agendum inline, all just my own opinion.
14.10.2014, 01:43, "Steve Zilles" <steve@zilles.org>:
1. Review Open Action Items
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
2. Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
This is a relatively narrow issue. For reasons of process and practice, W3C working groups do not necessarily issue errata in an expeditious fashion. We should fix the W3C Process so that it encourages groups to consistently and expeditiously issue errata. There are other related topics, such as where the errata should reside, that are not part of this issue, but separate issues.
If the issue is purely about what Working Groups should do better or more regularly, I don't think the Process is the right place. It already notes that errata should be tracked. You can't write rules that ensure people work hard.
The issues around how to handle versioning are important, and deep (and touch on the "Policy-that-should-not-be-named-without-consulting-PSIG"). If we're not looking at that (and I doubt there is much low-hanging fruit there) I don't think we should bother with this little part of the issue.
As noted already, I think we can reduce the description of the Team to "who does the Process mean when it says 'the Team'". The answer being about one sentence, without the nice but unnecessary further descriptions.
As noted already, the heartbeat section in chapter 6 is more or less useless in many cases, and the functional parts are replicated in the new chapter 7, so we could just delete the section.
5. Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review
This is the “issue” in the Process CG Tracker, but the discussion has been wider than this and includes a CfC for mailing list (but, in principle, a public notification system that could be any or all of mailing list, DB, Webpage, calendar notification) that can be used to indicate a desire for “wide review” of a given document. All of the concerns are in scope for this discussion.
I think it is important to clarify that it is not a good practice to ask for "wide review" when the document is done, since some people apparently misunderstand that.
It would be *VERY* helpful if the Team or Director would provide some further hints on what they think might be good examples, since they are the ones who will judge the question. Direct input from them to the wiki page
https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview is probably far more efficient than trying to second-guess them.
But it seems to me the basic working assumption is that there are a reasonable number of comments from people beyond the WG, addressed satisfactorily. Where "reasonable number" naturally depends on the make-up of the Working Group, the spec in question and the ecosystem where it fits (all things the process is spectacularly ill-suited to describe, let alone attempt to define). If not, sensible explanations would include a broad-based Working Group that was very active, so the wider community were already represented in the review.
Some example signals of a *lack* of wide review: "we 4 people know everything about this and we think it is fine", or "although no browser implements or even commented on this idea, a lot of content managers like it". I'll try to edit the Wiki page to clarify this
The Process requires that one or more editors be named, who must be members of the relevant Working Group.
This means the whole working group can be named, and therefore this issue should be closed.
There is a separate ISSUE-93 -
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/93 - "What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG" raised but not opened, because the Process and Patent Policy do assume that a single Working Group produces each spec.which requires groups that do joint work to perform some administrative contortions that we might want to eliminate). This issue arose from the review of Process-2014, so we should probably look at it. But since it involves the-Policy-that... we might find it takes some time to resolve - if we start now, we might be able to have something by the time we want to propose Process-2016
No, the terminology is not very good. But arguing in a meeting about changing it is worse, and shifting the terms to others which have been so far used for something different would increase confusion. I suggest we postpone this issue indefinitely.
Please check the issues which are "pending review" - perhaps they can be closed, or need to be reopened. https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/pendingreview
Please open issues if they are going to be placed on an agenda, and more generally maintain their state in the tracker, so people can tell by looking at it what the status is of the now 150-ish questions that are considered possible issues.
(I have moved all the items in this agenda as Open, along with the redundant issue 96 which is attached to some actual discussion of the question).
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at
http://yandex.com