DRAFT Agenda Process Call Wednesday September 13th, 9am Pacific

Full Webex Information is on our Mail Archives <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2017Sep/0000.html>  (member only accessible, email me if this is a problem)

IRC is #w3process



1) Assign scribe, etc.

2) Bulk confirmation of Consensus that these are addressed as requested and can be closed. I do not intend to go one by one here unless requested.

Substantive:

#13 What is a "Memorandum of Understanding”?
 — I think CG text was merged; in addition, it was clarified that the Director’s signature would follow the outcome of any request for appeal and possible subsequent appeal
#26 Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document
 — Wendy’s PR was merged#36 Do we need a superseded status for older specs?
 — I think Leonie’s agreed text integrated, with matching odd edits in other places
#57 Definition of obsolete
 — merged into #36 above and addressed
#60 Clarify the voting process
 — done, line dropped as recommended, but we have ongoing discussion (by Mike, notably). 
#62 can the AB/TAG chair ask for a special election in *advance* of a known upcoming vacancy?
 — done
   "• The group Chair may request an exceptional election, and the election may begin, as soon as a current member gives notice of a resignation, including a resignation effective as of a given date in the future.”

Editorial:

#8 Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes
 — now says that you need to get Director’s approval for all changes to CR, and Substantive changes can require a new exclusion opportunity
#44 Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks?
 — done, I think there are no occurrences of “4 weeks” or “four weeks”
#55 Duplicate sentences in Chapter 6
 — done, I think
#56 ToC/document mismatches
 — done/in-process

2) Minor discussion, if needed. At most TWO minutes each:

#5 improved errata management
 — I think PLH’s PR was merged as-is. Do we need to say that 
   a) a Contribution IPR grant will be sought when appropriate?
   b) that Amended Recs have a warning that the W3C’s IPR grant is formally for the Recommendation on which they are based? (and that the document should be published in such a way as the reader can work out where they stand)?
   Or are these a matter of practice?

#30 Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document
 — now says "Participants in W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [PUB38]”
   it should say “any” W3C activity

#29 Editorial changes often called "minor changes”
 — but the editor disputes that it’s editorial; are we done?

3) Discussion and resolution of the ones that had not landed as of writing this draft. Note that we have about FIVE MINUTES for each of these (leaving a few minutes for lateness, other business, and so on). It would be vastly preferable to reach rough consensus in the issues/pull-requests, and confirm on the call.

#23 Director can dismiss a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?

#24 Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter

#33 Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation

#34 Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year

#48 The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes
 — I have prepared a PR for the text agreed to date; this should be integrated, see PR #77. I had to tidy the language a little.

#52 Proposed changes to TAG makeup

#63 Updates to sections 5.2.2 and 2.1.3.1

4) Approve sending a message to the AC asking for them to review <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> informally between now and the AC meeting in Burlingame. Your ‘team contacts’ (Jeff and Wendy), Editor (Chaals) and Chair (me) will have to write an accompanying message listing all the addressed issues, and explaining how we got to where we got to (roughly). At the AC meeting we’ll have a face to face session, intro and Q&A, and then be starting the formal ballot. Draft(s) to be sent to the Process CG, consensus sought there on the intro.

5) Next meeting. Re-schedule or postpone? Scheduled for Oct 11th 9am Pacific, but I will be in a 3GPP Meeting in Belgrade (but I could do it from there). Do we need it?

6) Any other business.



Thanks

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 11 September 2017 19:11:30 UTC