W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2018

Re: DRAFT agenda for the next Process Call, Oct 3rd (note odd week) 7am PDT

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:09:14 +0900
Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79717307-49F6-4955-8A7A-EA9BBCCB99BA@rivoal.net>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

I'd like to propose an alternative way of building the agenda, aimed at trying to maximize the productivity of the call. The result is not terribly different from what David proposed, but I hope it can help us spend more time on solving issues, and less on finding which issues to solve.

Natasha and I have been through the list of open issues, and marked with the "Agenda+" label all issues where we thought there was either a pull request waiting for approval, a conclusion within reach, or some kind of deadlock to try and crack. We've also marked as "Needs Proposed PR" all issues where making a PR seemed like the most likely way forward, but I've since made PRs for all these, and turned then into Agenda+.

Effectively, this roughly corresponds to the same issues as what David's agenda proposes, but starting with a concrete list of identified-as-actionable PRs/issues, rather than dynamic lists to sift through during the call. Based on this list of Agenda+ issues (https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Agenda%2B) and using the same way to prioritize as David's original agenda, here's a suggested Agenda for this time:

== Administrativia & Publication

0. Point 4 from David's agenda: Decide on how/when to progress this to AC ballot and possible adoption.
   I'm suggesting taking it first so that we can then go through as many PRs/issues as possible after that.
   Alternatively, we can take it between agenda item 9 and 10 (equivalent to David's ordering),
   but I don't know if we'll get that far.

== Agenda+ on identified priorities, with pending PRs

1. Reword the maturity criteria for advancing to CR

2. Define substantive/editorial for Charter and Process reviews & require a new review after substantive changes

== Agenda+ on identified priorities, without PRs

3. Proposing to close as wontfix the request to make the process require a security/privacy/i18n/a11y section

== Agenda+ on issues with pending PRs

4. Setting up the AB to be 9 to 11 members

5. Follow up to #172: What are the requirements to update a CR?

6. Clarify when the superseded procedure is meant to be used

7. Actually define FPWD

8. Resolve apparent contradiction in the definition of member submissions

9. Allow representation of multiple members

== Agenda+ on issues without PRs (or with rejected PRs)

10. Does the removal of "Member" from 2.5.1 has unintended consequences?

11. Public channel for AC reviews?

12. Should the process say something about the use of github or other tools?

13. Proposal not to document how to move from CG to TR in the process

14. Close overly broad issue

I suspect we may not get to the bottom of this list in a one call, but they are roughly triaged by priority/actionability anyway, and we can cary forward the rest to the next call.

Hoping you'll all be interested in trying this approach, and that you David won't be too annoyed at me for highjacking the agenda.


> On Oct 2, 2018, at 3:22, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> Webex at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2018Oct/0000.html>
> IRC is #w3process
> Log of prior meeting at <https://www.w3.org/2018/09/12-w3process-minutes.html>
> Yes, this is one week early.
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
> 2) Review of Pull Requests that are pending, concentrating on those that address Process2019Candidate issues. ****We would like this to be the meat of the call.****
> (Note, as of time of writing, there are only two, neither agreed).
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls>
> 3) Review Process2019 Priorities, focusing on those that don’t have associated pull requests, but do have assignees (and asking why not):
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+assignee%3A*+label%3AProcess2019Candidate>
> Special focus on issues that HAVE a tentative conclusion in the discussion, converting that into an agreement for the editor to Pull Request.
> No unassigned Process2019Candidate issues.
> (There are no Assigned issues that are not also Process2019Candidate issues:
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3AProcess2019Candidate+assignee%3A*>)
> 4) Decide on how/when to progress this to AC ballot and possible adoption.
> Diff from current process: <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F>
> * 2.3.1 increase in AB size
> * 2.5.0, 2.5.1 clarifications on AB/TAG participation
> * 2.5.2 define ‘affiliation’ for the purposes of avoiding dual representation
> * 3.6 ‘written’ notification means recorded
> * 6.1.2 cleanup and re-ordering for clarity (I think) of advancement process
> * 6.2.6 (new) requirements of license grants from non-WG members
> * 6.9 editorial (I think) cleanup to rescinding/obsoleting
> * whatever we did in the call
> 4) If we have time, new issues and updates.
> 3.1) new since prior call: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2018-09-12+>
> 3.2) updated but not Process2019Candidate <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2018-09-12+-label%3AProcess2019Candidate+>
> 5) Next meeting. Wed November 14th. Post-TPAC considerations.
> 6) Any other business.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2018 14:09:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:48 UTC