Re: Agenda Process Document Task Force on Webex Monday, 14 September 2015

Steve,

While I usually try to attend, I have a conflict on Monday and send my 
regrets.  Some comments on the agenda below.

Jeff

On 9/9/2015 11:15 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> The call is on Monday, 14 September, 2015 at 15:00-16:00 UTC 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=08&day=26&year=2014&hour=14&min=00&sec=0&p1=0>
> *Webex Information (Note change of Telcon site)*
>
> Dial-in: +1-617-324-0000
>
> Access code: 641 501 274
>
> Meeting number: 641 501 274
>
> Meeting password: process
>
> URL to join meeting: 
> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mbea8090287ebcf2d2cbf4b3a2b15dda9
>
> Host key: 628756
>
> This meeting is now monthly, has moved to Monday and is held one hour 
> later than before
>
> For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
>
> Pacific:  8:00
>
> Eastern US: 11:00
>
> Central Europe: 17:00
>
> Japan: 24:00
>
> 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.Discuss Issues and Proposals for “Appeals” Issues
> Toward the end of the process of creating Process 2015, a number of 
> issues related to "appeals" in the W3C process surfaced. At that time, 
> there seemed to be too little time to appropriately address the issues 
> with the care the seem to be needed. Now that Process 2015 is in 
> Review, it is time to start on revisions for Process 2016 and the 
> "appeals" issues seem like a good place to start. The issues:
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/7
>
> and the proposal:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0030.html
>
> Note: there have been zero comments on the text of the proposal. Does 
> this mean it is OK as is?
>

I am interested in this topic; somehow I missed that there was a 
specific proposal to review.  I look forward to reading the dialog from 
Monday's meeting.

I have commented in earlier discussions on this topic (although I don't 
have the link right now).  While I have not reviewed this proposal in 
detail, generally speaking, I am not in favor of changes to the process 
document (certainly not massive changes like proposed herein) unless we 
have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve.  I 
have not heard a groundswell of people wanting all of these changes and 
I'm skeptical that this adds value.

> 3.Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Sep/0008.html
>

I support Alan's proposal.

> 4.Possible Issues related to Chartering Working Groups
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Sep/0013.html
>

Lots of ideas so I won't comment on them all.  A few thoughts.

I am supportive of the movement to drive exploratory work into CGs. 
That's why they were created.

I'm supportive of writing some best practice guidelines for charter 
creation and level of specificity.

In my experience we have many different types of working groups, with 
different levels of maturity, different participants, and this changes 
in time.  Accordingly, I'm not convinced that we want a prescriptive 
process document shackles on what hurdles MUST be jumped before 
something is chartered.

> 5.Choose next set of topics to pursue
>
> 6.Review other Open and Raised Issues
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/
>
> 7.Any Other Business
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>