Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September

On 9/23/2014 3:14 PM, Steve Zilles wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I am currently travelling and do not know if I will be able to call in 
> or whether I will have Inet access. If I am missing, I suggest that 
> Jeff fill in as chair, assuming that he is willing.
>

Sure, but I hope you attend.

> Steve Z
>
> The call information for the Tuesday, 30 September, Process Document TF is
>
> Tuesdays14:00-15:00 UTC 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=08&day=26&year=2014&hour=14&min=00&sec=0&p1=0>(10:00am-11:00am 
> Boston local)
> Zakim Bridge+1.617.761.6200 <tel:+1.617.761.6200>, conference code 
> 7762 ("PROC")
> IRC Channel: #w3process
>
> For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times is:
>
> Pacific US
>
> 	
>
> Eastern US
>
> 	
>
> Central Europe
>
> 	
>
> Japan
>
> 	
>
> Australia
>
> 	
>
> UTC
>
> 7:00
>
> 	
>
> 10:00
>
> 	
>
> 16:00
>
> 	
>
> 23:00
>
> 	
>
> 24:00/0:00
>
> 	
>
> 14:00
>
> The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of 
> open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move 
> toward closure.
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1.Review Open Action Items
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
>
> 2.Issue-115: Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 
> months <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115>
> Chaals has sent an updated proposal
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0139.html
>
> and I support a phrasing the David Singer had suggested
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0170.html
>
> 3.Issue-121: Intellectual property information.in charters 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121>
>
> 4.Issue-124: Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list 
> WHATWG specs <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/124>
>
> 5.Issue-34: Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? 
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/34>
> Beside the recent discussion on the mailing list, when this was 
> discussed (some time ago) in the AB, It was pointed out that the terms 
> Bad Standing (Not in Good Standing) was pejorative and led some 
> organizations (especially User Organizations) to avoid joining a 
> Working Group because they did not want their participants to be 
> labelled as being in Bad Standing when their Day Job prevented them 
> from participating as frequently as desired. Thus, besides removing 
> Good Standing, if the description is moved to some resource for 
> Charter Creation, then then a name change for the two categories 
> should be done. At the risk of starting a Bikeshedding activity and 
> based on the current effect of Good Standing, I suggest Voting 
> Participant and Non-voting participant. There may, however, be better 
> names and this group does not need to define them.
>
> 6.Issue-64: Chapter 7: add a link to an errata page 
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/64>
>
> Chaals noted that the Process2014 Document does have the requisite 
> information.
>
> 7.Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really 
> accurate and representative? 
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97>
>
> 8.Any other business
>
> For reference, The current editors draft of the Process Document [1].
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>
> Steve Zilles
>