Re: DRAFT-R1 agenda for the next Process Call, Oct 3rd (note odd week) 7am PDT

On 10/3/2018 12:04 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:31, Jeff Jaffe <> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2018 11:20 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 17:30 , Jeff Jaffe <> wrote:
>>>> Can we make #79 the highest priority among these?
>>> How so?  I am unaware of any
>>> a) substantive feedback from the AB on the process discussion
>> Since the last Process call I added the use cases section.
>>> b) substantive feedback from a constituency wanting to use an Evergreen process (‘we want to use it but we think <this> needs <that>’)
>> This is a chicken-and-egg problem.  The process is not yet clear enough for a constituency to stand up to say they will use it. That is why the Process CG needs to make more progress.
> As far as I can tell, neither the process CG nor the AB has a consensus that this is needed (nor does it have a consensus that it is not needed). Trying to get to this consensus one way or another is likely to take more than the entire call, without even discussing how we we set it up should we decide that is is what we want to do. Since we have other things we need to wrap up if we want them in before we send this to AC review, I agree with Dave that this call isn't the right time to talk about that.

I am sympathetic to the idea that this call is not the right time to 
talk about it. However, I have been arguing for months that this is the 
highest priority item - and we need a concentrated effort on it.  I 
would be satisfied if we had a different, more concentrated effort 
outside of the monthly calls.  However, given that this is the only 
forum that the Process CG meets, it's my key venue to raise this request.

> I think we should set up an explicit task force, with explicitly named participants (sign me up), and maybe have a dedicated call, or maybe have some more written discussions first (with deadlines to push people to react).

That's what I've been saying too.

> As for why I personally have not been more proactive even though I claim to be happy to be signed up: at a first approximation, I think adding such a process would be likely be a net negative, therefore I feel no strong urge to do anything if the discussion is stalled. I will actively and in good faith participate if an active discussion is set up though. But I don't want to down prioritize everything else in favor of that, especially when we're not 100% clear on why we're doing it. (I know you're clear on your motivations. I don't think the group as a whole is on board. I know I'm not).
> —Florian

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2018 12:40:49 UTC