Re: Agenda for the Process Call Wednesday 8th January 7am PDT

My understanding was that as of the previous call, the task that CG had assigned itself was to, for this call:

* Review the section 6 refactoring and either report problems with it, or agree to merge.
preview: https://w3c.github.io/w3process/section-6-clean-up/
diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Fsection-6-clean-up)

-> I very strongly hope that we can adopt the section 6 refactoring, as its whole goal is to make the rest easier.

* Review the everblue branch, and either report problems with it, or agree to merge, with the understanding that a few additional tweaks were still likely to be needed.
preview: https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/
diff against master: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Feverblue
diff against refactored section 6: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Fsection-6-clean-up%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Feverblue%2F

-> I know we'll have to do some further tweaking once the patent policy stabilizes, that closing the remaining open issues will likely involve some further changes, and that we may find a couple more as we wrap things up. Even then, I think we should be getting to the point where we give a green light to merge, hopefully this call or next call at the latest, and to get the remaining specific concerns filed as individual issues. Although I wish more people had been involved, it has already received substantial detailed feedback, and iterations based on that feedback. At this stage, we need to be wrapping up and finalizing the more subtle points, and we need to be past the general question of whether we like the general idea or not.

With that out of the way, we can focus our energy on things remaining issues: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Everblue%2Fteal

—Florian

> On Jan 8, 2020, at 7:21, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for not sending a draft for critique.
> 
> Webex at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2019May/0000.html>
> 
> IRC is #w3process
> 
> Log of prior meeting at <https://www.w3.org/2019/12/11-w3process-minutes.html>
> 
> 
> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM PACIFIC
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
> 
> 2) Agenda bash. I’d like Florian, and anyone else, say if any of the issues or Pull Requests would benefit from discussion on the call; we’ll add them to the end of the agenda, forcing a time limit.
> 
> 3) Timetable and process.
> 
> We have to have a completed document, and an overview, approved by the AB, ready to present to the AC prior to the spring AC meeting. There is only one prior AB meeting.
> 
> I do not think our current operating technique is working for the review of large changes. Both the everblue and the registries changes are significant. I have not finished my review of them yet, and honestly I wonder if anyone has. Somehow, the AB has to have done an informed review and approval, as well. This meeting of the process CG is therefore dedicated to working out how we get to the spring AC meeting in good shape.
> 
> Jeff contributed this proposal. As far as he and I can see, we have these process CG calls before the next AB f2f, where we need AB approval.
> 
>  • 8 January
>  • 22 January
>  • 12 February
> 
> It would be terrific if the Process CG can tell the AB at our F2F that they approve the proposed Editor's draft.  We have a lot to slot in to those three meetings to achieve that. Perhaps by the 22nd of January we can send a CfC?
> 
> Some of the items we should talk about locking down include:
> 
>  • Making sure that the Process CG is comfortable with the way that the AB embraced ET as we sent it to PSIG.
>  • Probably Florian wants to do an "edit run" just to clean up some of the writing.  At least he said in November that the thing we were sending to PSIG was "conceptual" but not the final language.
>  • Registries
>  • Patent policy.  Which is mostly out of our hands.  But perhaps the Process CG can trust the combination of the Process CG chair, the editors, AB chair, PSIG, and Wendy.
> 
> I’m going to let Jeff lead this.
> 
> Jeff wanted to include CEPC but I don’t think this CG owns it; we simply refer to it from the process. I think that’s between the CEPC’s task force and the AB, and this process CG doesn’t need to get into the middle?
> 
> 
> The usual closers:
> 
> 4) Next meeting. Wed Jan 22nd. I will be in a 3GPP meeting (Poland) but hoping to be able to break for an hour to chair this.
> 
> 5) Any other business.
> 
> Offline, we need people to start closing, or moving issues to the 2021 milestone, and so on.
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2020 12:47:46 UTC