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

On 9/12/2018 7:09 PM, Virginia Fournier wrote:
> Hi Jeff and all,
>
> Just a reminder that the “Evergreen Standards” model would require an 
> addendum to the Patent Policy in addition to any provisions added to 
> the Process Document.  PSIG participants have indicated that they want 
> to be involved in any change/addition to the Patent Policy, so they 
> would need to be part of this process as well.  Any “dedicated task 
> force” would need to include PSIG, who are the folks who are the most 
> knowledgeable and experienced when it comes to standards IP issues.
>
> I’ve copied Don and Helene for coordination with PSIG.  Thanks.

Great point.  Don, please let us know who the PSIG would like to name to 
work with us on this.

>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏669-227-9595
> ✉︎vmf@apple.com <mailto:vmf@apple.com>
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>> Usual meeting time: SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM
>> 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 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&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* 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&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+ 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&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 
>> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&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.
>
> [1]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+assignee%3A*+label%3AProcess2019Candidate
>
> [2]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79
>
> [3]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards
>
>>
>>
>> 6) Any other business.
>