Re: Agenda for the Process Call Wednesday 24 Feb 7am PDT, and an email question for all on the list

It is awkward in that it is 2am in Melbourne (when the US goes into summer  
time it will revrt to midnight which is less painful) and it is impossible  
in that it clashes directly with a core meeting for my day job.

cheers

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:13:15 +1100, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> First, repeating 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/2021/02/10-w3process-minutes.html>
>
> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM  
> PACIFIC.
>
>
>
> Overall purpose: still trying to close down 2021
>
>
>
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
>
> 2) Agenda bash.
>
> 3) The Four Horsemen of the 2021 Process. Where are we, where are we  
> going, and how do we get from here to there?
>
>    3.1) Tooling Policy. AB CfC is out to the AB, comments are coming in.  
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/436>
>    3.2) Separate track for Notes. We’ve got good support from the AC.  
> Time to land it? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/488>
>    3.3) Elevating Notes to W3C Hoojamaflips. Or do we prefer  
> whadyamaycallits? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/489>
>    3.4) Registries. Survey results  
> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/registries-chair-survey/results>.  
> I believe Florian has recommendations on:
>      3.4.1) Separate track or say that definitions of a Registry must be  
> published in a Recommendation?
>      3.4.2) If we have a separate track, is a CR indicating “we think  
> the definition is ready for people to kick the tyres” useful or not?
>      3.4.3) Should we allow tables and registries to be published  
> separately or require togetherness?
>
> 4) 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>
>
> 5) 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 on enumerating the requirements for Wide Review. Covered well  
> enough, so close? See also <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/401>
>
>  (all else is Registries etc. and covered elsewhere)
>
>
> 6) 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:
>
> 7) Next meeting.  10 March
>
> 8) Any other business.
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple
>
> singer@apple.com
>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles "chaals" Nevile
ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 07:11:57 UTC