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

Re: DRAFT agenda for the next Process Call, September 12th 7am PDT (note time)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:29:48 -0400
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <969d1bc4-101e-8943-6caa-d2a55d332c2e@w3.org>

On 9/10/2018 5:50 PM, David Singer wrote:
> Webex at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2018Sep/0000.html>
> IRC is #w3process
> Log of prior meeting at <https://www.w3.org/2018/08/15-w3process-minutes.html>
> Yes, this is one week delayed.
> 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.****
> <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) If we have time, new issues and updates.
> 3.1) new since August call: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2018-08-14+>
> 3.2) updated but not Process2019Candidate <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2018-08-14+-label%3AProcess2019Candidate>
> 5) Next meeting. Theoretically Oct 10th.  I would like to back up one week as (a) we need to decide if we’re presenting this new process to the AC for ballot and we need to have time to prep and (b) I will be in Macau at an mpeg meeting.

My input is that we are not yet ready to take this to the AC.  Here are 
my reasons:

1. We still have 11 items that identified as Process 2019 Candidates 
which are still open [1].  Given that we identified these as most 
important at the beginning of the exercise, there is too much open to 
call ourselves done.

2. I could forgive ourselves for [1] if we had some really important way 
to improve standards making in Process 2019.  But I don't think we are 
there yet.  My favorite one, btw is Living or Evergreen Standards [2].  
If we could make progress on that - it alone would justify a process Rev.

3. The lack of a solution for Evergreen Standards is particularly 
painful.  First, it was opened over a year ago.  So we have had plenty 
of time to think about it.  Plus, there is an enormous amount of work 
that David and others have done on it [3].  Looking at a year of 
tremendous work - but no final proposal has me concerned.  I am 
concerned that we are prioritizing some easy successes - but never 
getting to something transformational.  My preference would be to 
appoint a dedicated task force to get Evergreen Standards done in a 
short period of time, and then declare ourselves done for Process 2019.

4. Even if we decided that we are "good to go" with Process 2019 on 
October 3rd, there is a lot to do before proposing to the AC.  We would 
need AB approval; we should get W3M input; we should send it to the AC 
at least two weeks in advance of the meeting if we want a robust 
discussion.  The AB's attention is likely to be diverted to the Legal 
Entity and WHATWG topics adding to the time pressure.


[2] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

[3] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards

> 6) Any other business.
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 21:29:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:47 UTC