Re: DRAFT agenda for the regular Process Call Wednesday 12th June 7am PDT


I don't think that the agenda that you published is what we agreed to in 
the last call.

In the last call, we spent most of the time discussing whether to have 
an experimental ER track or whether to fold the requirements for issue 
#79 into the current REC track.

I took the position that either was acceptable assuming that we could 
get them solved quickly, but since we have been working on ER for months 
and there is no proposal to solve the issue #79 use cases in the REC 
track we needed to see a proposal and make the determination quickly.

To address that, several people volunteered to write up the 
modifications for the REC track and get it done in the 3 intervening 
weeks.  I thought that the main purpose of this week's call is to assess 
whether this proposal (a) achieves our goals and (b) is likely to get 
through PSIG for its PP revisions.  I don't see that in this agenda.

Below, I excerpt from [1] the main summary points.


jeff: I don't actually understand where we ended on the ER meta-question?

dsinger: fantasai &co will write up for the next call what they mean by 
an alternative approach
... what specifically do we need to do
... for the revising process approach
... We have 4 people who push that, asking to write it up -- what 
exactly do you mean by that

jeff: So next call we'll have "fix the process" proposal and we'll have 
the "evergreen experiment" proposal
... An we can look at both of them, see how they solve use cases and 
what time frames seem possible
... and then figure out what to do next

dsinger: we won't eliminate all choices, but roll a lot of evergreen 
aspects into main process
... evergreen plus snapshots, or rec track, choice for maintenance
... I think we need to see what they look like, A or B?

florian: I think direction we characterize is good, might take more than 
2 weeks for all details

On 6/10/2019 6:17 PM, David Singer wrote:
> Webex at <>
> IRC is #w3process
> Log of prior meeting at <>
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
> 2) We need to make progress on Registries. Please review the Wiki text at
>   <>
>    and its supporting issue
>   <>
>    I would like consensus to take this
>      a) into Process-text drafting
>      b) back to the people who said they needed a registry process, to see if they have comments
> 3) Editorials, and (Other) Pull Requests and Issues tagged Agenda+
>    3.1) Approving in bulk the editorial updates, please review offline as we won’t have time on the call:
>         <>
>     3.2) Pull Requests: <>
>     3.3) Issues:   <✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3AAgenda%2B+>
> 4) If we have time, Review of 2020 milestone; who has the action, where are we going, what’s next?
>    4.1) assigned to someone:
>    <✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+assignee%3A*>
>    4.2) unassigned:
>    <✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+no%3Aassignee>
> 5) If we have time, new issues and updates.
>    5.1) new since prior check: <✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2019-03-13+>
>    5.2) updated but not Process2020 milestone <✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2019-05-22+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22>
> 6) If we have time, Assigned, but not on the 2020 milestone
>    <✓&q=is%3Aopen+assignee%3A*+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22>)
> 7) Next meeting. formally Wed June 26th
> 8) Any other business.

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2019 02:30:25 UTC