Re: DRAFT Agenda for the Process Call Wednesday 10 Feb 7am PDT, and an email question for all on the list

one small comment inline.

On 2/8/2021 7:34 PM, David Singer wrote:
> First, the question:
>
> This meeting has been an 7am Pacific for a long time now; are there potential attendees, people who would like to attend, for whom this time is awkward, unpleasant, or impossible? Please respond to the chair or this list if so (and describing the conflict or problem). Thanks
>
> * * * *
>
>
> 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/2021/01/20-w3process-minutes.html>
>
> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM PACIFIC.
>
>
>
> Overall purpose: close down 2021
>
> This agenda is too long, unless we triage by making rapid, informed, brilliant decisions on some of these. Let’s try not to re-discuss everything.
>
>
>
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
>
> 2) Agenda bash.
>
> 3) Decisions on what needs AB input.  <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Needs%20AB%20Feedback>
>
>    Task: decide on what to send to the AB (by triaging this list, and adding the label on others as needed during the meeting).
>
>    #486 and #487 are TAG nomination and election
>    #482 on the adoption of a formal anti-trust policy
>    #436 (cover #322) on the minimal tooling requirements we propose
>    #334 Recording of meetings. Does the AB agree with codifying the current practice in <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/334#issuecomment-674135713>
>
> The following have the label but the AB can handle when they like:
>
>    #316 and #280 are both concerned with Director-free, which is already on the AB’s agenda
>    #223 is about the AB chair selection, and we can leave the label and let the AB get to it when the AB wants to
>
> These two have the label but I am not sure why:
>
>    #168 Registries; not sure why it has the AB feedback label?

I suspect there were two reasons for AB feedback on this one:

  * It has long been viewed as one of the more important deliverables of
    P2021
  * It had been a candidate deliverable for P2020, but was dropped when
    the AB lacked consensus on the approach.  So it is prudent to get
    the AB to agree on our approach rather than finding out late in the
    game that they disagree once again.

>    #130 Requirements for wide review; gained the label in March 2018; do we still need AB feedback?
>
> 4) Major topics
>    5.1) Registries: Report on the Registries survey. Who can tell us where we are and the responses received? (It’s not in my WBS, alas).
>    5.2) W3C Notes: are we ready to pull #489 Memoranda, and deal with #461 thereby (elevating a TAG document to W3C approved status)?
>
> 5) Marked Agenda+
>
>    #310, #313, TAG chair; Florian gave Agenda+ 22 days ago, we didn’t get to them last time
>    #342 decoupling Notes and Rec track; we discussed last time and there was ACTION Florian summarize the points of why disconnection is needed into the issue
>    #488 Note track; are we good to Pull?
>    #489 Memoranda (is above, major topic)
>    #493 and #494 Pull, clarifying Team Amendments. We seem converged, are we?
>
> 6) Issues that  the AC gave us last time we asked for a review; we should probably try to clean up?
>
>    <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/AC-review>
>
> 7) Process 2021, The Milestone <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/milestone/6> (long list)
>
>    P2021 Priority, shorter list <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Priority>
>
>    #130 is on the Needs AB Feedback
>    #168, #329, #330, #353, #354 are all Registries
>    #356 Streamlining the process document. We need specific suggestions ;-)
>    #468 elevating a TAG document to approved is covered by major topic above
>
> 8) Other Pull Requests (other than agenda+, Needs AB Feedback, or a priority)
>
>    #299 Any decision can be objected to
>    #401 Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review; lots of discussion, what can we land?
>    #433 Simplify the text on liaisons. Does this go back to the AB, as it touches on members that are consortia (maybe they should be liaisons with a specific WG?)
>    #434 (face to face) Meetings of new groups are 8 weeks from charter approval
>    #485 possible missing link (editorial)
>
>
> The usual closers:
>
> 9) Next meeting.  24 Feb
>
> 10) Any other business.
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>