W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2017

Draft Agenda Process Call Wednesday August 23rd, 9am Pacific

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:57:03 -0700
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <BD5796E5-1A59-4A46-A04B-57432A8FBC2B@apple.com>
Full Webex Information is on our Mail Archives <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2017Aug/0000.htmll>  (member only accessible, email me if this is a problem)

IRC is #w3process

1) Assign scribe, etc.

2) Some of us did a triage meeting on Friday, and tried to select those issues we can and should handle in Process 2018, and tagged them.  We need to determine if this is the right list. see <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Process2018Candidate>
   2.1) Are there any issues on the list that should not be (please come prepared to nominate, we may not scan all of them)?
   2.2) Are there any issues NOT on the list that should be (please come prepared to nominate, we will not scan all other issues)?

3) We think that the following should be closed, as they are either handled already or questions of practice:
   3.1) Closing
      #16 Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, …)
      #21 Errata access from TR page
      #22 Do we need separate Errata and REC Track Processes?
      #25 How should consortia which are members of W3C nominate representatives and commit IPR?
   3.2) Merging.
      Merge #3, #12, #18, all about guests, handling non-member submissions, and so on; there is practice work under way and we think we should hold formal process changes until the practice is sorted out
      Merge #9, #27; we don’t think this is urgent, and we want to get the handling right (people who Represent more than one Organization; currently disallowed)

The rest of the agenda assumes no major change to the Process2018Candidate list and for the most part focuses on it.

4) For all items now on the candidate list, do we have consensus that the proposed text is what we want?
   4.1) The following are marked editorial and I do not intend to take time on them unless someone asks: 
           #24, #29, #44, #55, #56, #57
   4.2) The following have proposed text; are we comfortable moving ahead with informal AC review of a process that incorporates this?
       #5 Improve Errata management in W3C
       #8 Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes (this is almost editorial)
       #13 What is a "Memorandum of Understanding”?
       #23 Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?
       #26 Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document (almost editorial as well)
       #30 Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document
       #33 Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation
       #36 Do we need a superseded status for older specs?
       #52 Proposed changes to TAG makeup
       #62 Can the AB/TAG chair ask for a special election in *advance* of a known upcoming vacancy?
       #63 Updates to sections 5.2.2 and

   4.3) We have initial text for this, but we think that more discussion may be needed (e.g. should a super-majority be required to over-ride the Director?)
        #48 The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes

   4.4) These bug one or more people but we don’t have agreement on precise text; we could discuss these for a long time
        #34 Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year (action on Dave and Chaals)
        #60 Clarify the voting process

5) Next meeting. September 13th, 9am Pacific. 

6) Any other business.


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 18 August 2017 21:57:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:44 UTC