Revised Agenda for the Process Call Wednesday 16 sept 7am PDT

Webex at <>

IRC is #w3process

(Partial?) Log of prior meeting at <>


Overall purpose: moving ahead with our priorities

(Again hoping Ralph and Philippe can join for Registries at least)

1) Assign scribe, etc.,

2) Agenda bash. 

3) Pat ourselves on the back: <>

4) Issues and PRs tagged agenda+.  Yes/No, take discussion to Github, please.

4.1) Revising a Rec.: PLH asked it be kept open?

#428 Retire Amended RECs <>

are we ready to Pull?

4.2) What does the document status "discontinued" mean? #262

Do we have consensus to add the sentence and move on?

4.3) Define "CEO" and "Team Decision" #438

Are we OK with the proposed conclusion?

4.4) Change ‘change’ 

#449 renaming ‘candidate change’ <>

Is it worth doing after publishing for a year? Pursue (or close it)?

5) Registries

I felt, and I had comments from others, that what was drafted was rather long and appeared rather heavy-weight, and so I went away and read it all with a view of asking “can this be simpler and still do what we need done?”

The realization I had was that we can define that the status of a registry is the status of its defining recommendation. With this definition, registries become formal when their definition is a Rec. and are (pick a word) drafts or provisional or something like that until then.

My attempt at simplification is at <> i.e. the registries branch of a fork. I thought I was up to date when I started editing but now Github tells me I am not. 

Elika and Florian’s text simplified by introducing a simpler track for Registry Definitions with no CR phase (I think) as there is no implementation experience possible. However, I think that CR is the signal to the world ‘look at this, we think it complete and we intend to make a Rec out of it” and that question IDS appropriate for Registries. I also think that making the process document longer to simplify this case is a debatable optimization.

Similarly it can’t get exclusions as it contains nothing normative; but lawyers can work that out pretty rapidly.

Problems: My fork was not up to date before editing, shame on me.


5.1) Can we go with a simple version of Registries in this direction, take this as a basis and direction and get the chair/editors to refine and align?

5.2) Do we need the warning that the conformance of a Recommendation must not depend on a Registry? It shouldn’t depend on anything that gets changed without a formal consensus process, and Registries are only one possibility; but it’s an easy mistake to make.

5.3) Name bike-shedding. My text uses Registry Definition for the Rec that defines the registry, and Registry Report for the table of values. I think we’re better off simply calling the values the W3C Registry; it’s what people mean when they say “that’s in the XXX Registry”.

As time permits, 

6) Review of the Process2021 Milestone <>

The usual closers:

6) Next meeting. Nominally 14th Oct, I think, but that’s too far away AND I have a conflict (MPEG).

Can we meet the 7th Oct?

7) Any other business.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2020 23:29:25 UTC