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

Belated regrets.  I'm afraid I've picked up a cold.

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 4:48 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>