W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2019

Triage of the Process CG repository, (simple) action items for all of us

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:26:56 -0700
Message-id: <713E2E91-7FFB-42F6-8E5F-73C480172536@apple.com>
To: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Folks, it’s time to clean up the Process CG repo. I’d like people to take action (it won’t take long, not much longer than reading this email). Specific action lines tagged thus ==>.

* I removed Agenda+ from the one issue that had it; it didn’t seem to need discussion on the call. Reminder: I try to be strict with myself on Agenda+’d issues and pull requests; they go on the agenda for a call until they are discussed. So please Agenda+ something if you think it needs to be raised (typically for one of two reasons: you think it’s converged and you’d like a declaration of consensus and agreement to proceed; or you think it’s stuck and real-time conversation is needed to resolve something).

* Assigned and on Milestone2020: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+assignee%3A*>

==> Please review your assignments, and either indicate that you intend/expect to complete them for 2020, or remove the Milestone. (Florian has 5, Wendy, Ralph, Leonie have 1 shared, issue 130).

Do NOT tag Milestone2021; setting our priorities for next year is a group process that we expect to start soon after TPAC.

* Unassigned on the 2020 Milestone. <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+no%3Aassignee>

	Should the process include something about Testing? #157 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/157>
	define "independent" #167 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/167>
	process should clarify how Superseded state interacts with other maintenance processes (e.g., new versions, edited/amended recommendations) #183

These don’t seem to be converged, and no-one is assigned to them. 

==> If any of you think they should be on the 2020 milestone (a) volunteer and assign it to yourself (b) persuade us that the issue can and should be addressed in the Process2020 work.

* Already on Milestone2021, should they be? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/milestone/6>

	TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom #230 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/230>
	Enumerate the requirements for wide review #130 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130>

I wonder if I should remove this Milestone from them so we start with a clean slate. Thoughts?

* Then we have assigned issues not on the 2020 milestone. 

==> Florian: I only need action here if you do not think you should be assigned (un-assign yourself and tell us):

#223, #262 handled separately

	#299 Make it clear than any decision can be objected to <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299>
	#260 Further automating transition requests <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/260>
	#254 [director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/254>
	#281 objecting to chair appointments <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/281>
	#299 Make it clear than any decision can be objected to <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299>

* Then we have issues that people are active on, that are not part of Evergreen/blue, nor Director-free, nor on the 2020 Milestone:


There are 6:
#141 and #262 are above

Clarify the voting process #60 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60>
	— the famous sentence; we have an inconsistent process document, which I find acutely embarrassing, but we don’t have consensus on anything
We need to consider equal-preference voting #115 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/115>
	— probably sitting with the AB
Allow AB to choose its own chair #223 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/223>
	— propose we leave with the AB for now, and await their instructions
First meeting of a WG allowed too soon #251 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/251>
	— I think we should summarize the considerations here and ask the AC to comment on this issue; can we find something fair, reasonable, and workable?
	— we need a volunteer; I wonder if we should raise this to the AC somehow? (maybe in an update email?)

* Finally, we agreed on the call that we’d handle all revisions of the text about obsolete/rescinded/discontinued in whatever rewrite is needed consequent on the ever* process revisions. I made a new label, endoflife, and assigned it to:
	[evergreen] Need to be able to Rescind not-yet-REC REC-track documents #303
	[Evergreen] Retiring an evergreen REC by rescinding vs via republishing as Note #297
	What does the document status "discontinued" mean? #262
	process should clarify how Superseded state interacts with other maintenance processes (e.g., new versions, edited/amended recommendations) #183
	provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status #141

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2019 17:27:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:52 UTC