[minutes] 20221109 Process CG

Available at:
   https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-w3process-minutes.html

Summary of resolutions
* Merge https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/669
* Defer https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653 for 2023, unless 
mnot pushes back
* Close https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/628 no change, flag 
Commenter Not Satisfied

                   Revising W3C Process Community Group

09 November 2022

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Nov/0003.html
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-w3process-irc

Attendees

    Present
           cwilso, TallTed, wseltzer, fantasai, florian, pal, plh,
           tzviya

    Regrets
           dsinger

    Chair
           plh

    Scribe
           fantasai

Contents

     1. [4]Pull Requests
     2. [5]Issues
          1. [6]Closing Working Groups
     3. [7]Issues to Close
          1. [8]limiting scope of FO Council deliberations
     4. [9]Informal Review
          1. [10]Meeting Schedule
          2. [11]Proposal for a Directorate
     5. [12]End
     6. [13]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Pull Requests

    plh: Only PR to review is AB-BoD liaison

    florian: We're aware that AB is supposed to pick people and
    send them to the Board and the Board invites them

    <plh> github: [14]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/668

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/668

    florian: Process is not in charge of the Board, but can tell AB
    how to do its job
    … so that's what the PR does
    … an earlier phrasing of this was more forceful, it is now
    rephrased

    <plh> github: [15]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/668

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/668

    florian: AB picks some people, and expects the Board to invite
    them

    cwilso: I read through this and I'm totally fine with
    committing this as-is
    … I think it's good to get it on deck
    … it doesn't say anything about how AB will appoint, and I'm
    frankly fine with anything from "chairs just pick" to whatever
    process
    … but at some point we'll have to say how those are chosen

    florian: My guess is as a first pass, let chairs figure it out
    … and if we want to enshrine that, we can do that
    … but at this point, chairs figure out process

    cwilso: I will say that's what's implied, since the chair's
    assess the AB's consensus

    plh: fine with PR
    … one thing I'm a little uncomfortable is the number 2
    … isn't it up to the Board to decide how many people they want
    to accept?

    florian: number 2 is coming from a resolution of the Governance
    TF, which was forwarded to Steering Committee, who approved it
    … in other words, the exact same place the Bylaws came from

    florian: The number of people AB will send is 2, Board is
    expected to accept 2 (but could in theory accept 1 or 7 or
    whatever)

    florian: this is not trying to set up an expectation, it's
    trying to fulfill an expectation that was set up by the
    Governance TF and SC

    plh: Wish I could get +1 from david

    florian: He was part of the TF that approved it

    plh: Can change later on if needed
    … I can draw his attention later

    <plh> Proposed: Merge #669

    plh: Objections?

    RESOLUTION: Merge #669

   Issues

     Closing Working Groups

    github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653

    <plh> Github: [17]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/653

    florian: mnot noticed that there are some things that can be
    initiated by Team and some other people, but closing groups can
    only be proposed by the Team
    … either way there's an AC Review, so can't force it through
    … but who can initiate that?

    florian: I opened a minimalist PR to extend it to Team or AB or
    TAG
    … Nigel noticed that he didn't think it was a good idea
    … I think he prefers to funnel through the Team, to avoid e.g.
    AB wants to close a group while TAG has it open or vice versa
    … I think the PR is simple, but whether we want to adopt or not
    is open question

    plh: Right now the Director can propose to close a group
    … your proposal doesn't do that in spirit of Director-free,
    says TAG *or* AB not TAG *and* AB
    … Council is both

    florian: Council is a lot more complicated than TAG+AB
    … if they were doing this on their own, I'd be concerned, but
    they have to start an AC Review

    plh: Team doesn't get a choice, would have to start an AC
    Review once requested

    tzviya: There's some concern that the TAG would take on more
    work and AB would have less work, and for things like this as
    well as Charter Review, room for AB and TAG to work together
    … we're already working together for Councils
    … extraordinarily hard to coordinate, coordination is half the
    work
    … confluence of policy and tech work
    … I think it makes sense to work together
    … I think we should do something about this, how can we get the
    best of both groups

    florian: personally, even if it's a good idea, it's non-urgent
    … in normal circumstances, we can tell the Team and they'll
    listen and there's no blocking thing here
    … so in theory finding a broader way might be better, but we
    can defer this to next year
    … Mark raised it as part of Director-free
    … so if we're not doing this now, we need to argue with Mark

    fantasai: [...]

    fantasai: Could say TAG+AB, would only really be relevant when
    the Team disagrees

    florian: Situation is about forcibly closing a group that
    otherwise wouldn't stop on its own

    tzviya: I can easily see a scenario where this could happen
    … let's say a subgroup within W3C who want to specify a
    technology, but W3C at large wants to disassociate itself from
    that work

    florian: Not saying there isn't a case for that, but that it
    would be politically interesting

    plh: We always have some WGs that we wish we didn't have
    … can make case to close several groups as of today
    … but not going to

    florian: Back to the issue, we can do several things

    florian: a) defer

    florian: b) switch to AB + TAG, if in agreement

    plh: c) ask AB for feedback

    plh: If we do that kind of change, we're adding more
    responsibility

    florian: I don't expect this to be routine
    … this has been extremely rare or never happened, and I expect
    that to remain the case

    tzviya: I would say defer

    florian: Maybe defer and if mnot isn't okay with it, we work on
    it more?

    plh: I would be happy for us to defer, not to merge

    plh: objections to defer? If mnot comes back we can come back.

    RESOLUTION: Defer 653 for 2023, unless mnot pushes back

   Issues to Close

     limiting scope of FO Council deliberations

    github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/628

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/628

    plh: pal, you proposed this issue, where do we stand?

    pal: unresolved, can discuss here or take it to the AC

    florian: The type of changes we'd need to make to make the
    Council conform to what you're suggesting aren't small tweaks,
    they are a radical departure for how the Council is currently
    set up according to the AB resolutions
    … if you think that's not correct, and it's just tweaks, then
    maybe we're not understanding each other

    pal: I think it's just a one-sentence change, just limit the
    Council
    … Council shouldn't be inventing new process

    florian: It would defeat the purpose of Council
    … FOs are almost never about "this rule was violated, shut it
    down"

    pal: examples?

    florian: every single recent FO?

    pal: I don't understand how a single group can invent new
    <rules> and bind members to those rules, that makes new sense

    florian: I think that would make no sense, but that's not what
    it's doing
    … when we get to a Council, we were trying to have consensus
    and failed
    … default situation is, we're stuck we can do nothing

    pal: reject the FO

    florian: FO is not about "process is violated", it's a
    statement that "I cannot agree with this, we have no consensus"

    <tzviya> recent Devices and Sensors charter results
    [19]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results

    florian: the reason for my disagreement might be grounded in
    process, or grounded in privacy violation, or architectural
    decision or whatever
    … if Council cannot discuss anything other than process, then
    we can't resolve any FOs that are not grounded in Porcess
    … or it means that you cannot have an FO in absence of a
    process violation
    … which would be a radical departure to what FOs have been used
    for historically at W3C
    … if we have privacy problems, i18n, arhitecutral,
    accessibilty, any of these have been justifications for FOs

    pal: there's no more Director, so what used to work will not
    work in the future

    tzviya: That's exactly the point
    … Dropped a link to a recent FO
    … I've been observing this discussion a little remotely, but
    role of FO Council was created to replace the role of the
    Director in resolving FOs
    … see [20]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results
    … why are decisions about process even the discussion here,
    objections to charters or specs rarely have to do with Process
    … there might be notes about process, but the discussion is
    more about "I don't think this technology is doing X, Y, Z, not
    good for the world the way ti tis, not truly interoperable,
    violates X, Y Z"
    … far more involved than just process

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das2021/results

    pal: Technical decisions should be left to WGs

    florian: I think the point here is that, that would be a
    radical change to what a Recommenation is
    … a Recommendation is not work of a WG, it's the work of the
    entire Consortium

    pal: Can't have small group override experts in the WG

    plh: If there is disagreement within the AC, someone has to
    look at the disagreement and find a way forward

    pal: if only one AC objects, AC should be able to override them

    <plh> fantasai: it's just go as the idea that W3C has a
    consortium would decide by voting and W3C is not that

    <plh> ... we work by consensus

    <plh> ... every single FO has been handled on its own merits

    <plh> ... it's also that if WGs can't come to consensus, they
    need a way to escalate

    <florian> +1 to fantasai

    <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on "small group"

    tzviya: Agree with fantasai, and also want to comment on 'small
    group'
    … AB + TAG is 20 people, diverse group from geography,
    industry, etc.
    … elected by AC, it's a pretty good representation of W3C
    … Does a pretty good job of reflecting different aspects of W3C
    and how decision can be made

    pal: <to the earlier argument that W3C is about consensus and
    not voting, I would like to point that> the FO Council does
    have a voting procedure
    … it's much smaller group

    florian: Meta-point here, I think unless we convince
    pierre-anthony that his view was mistaken, which I don't think
    we are succeeding at, I don't think this is something we can
    resolve here
    … this wasn't a decision of this group, this is a decision of
    the AB
    … I think if you want to have this discussion, you have to have
    it with the AB, because this is in contradiction to what the AB
    is trying to do
    … we can't overturn what the AB wanted to do

    <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond

    fantasai: Voting on the Council is a last resort
    … supposed to find consensus, and usually does
    … also Council may be smaller but it is a more balanced group,
    and more diverse than a WG

    [discussion of deferring issue, closing, etc.]

    pal: My concern is moving technical decisions away from the
    technical experts

    pal: I'll raise it during AC Review
    …

    pal: how does this group communicate with the AB, btw?

    florian: Some of the time the AB makes a resolution, this is
    what we want in the Proces, Process CG figure out the details
    … and sometimes Process CG says, this seems to be above our pay
    grade, let's ask the AB
    … and finally before sending to AC for review, we send it to AB
    for review
    … plus there is cross-participation in both groups

    pal: if I wanted to file a minority report to the AB, what's
    the way to do it?

    florian: AB has a Member-visible repo, can post it there

    florian: Either we close this issue, or we can mark the issue
    as needing AB feedback
    … in either case, you're welcome to talk to AB directly

    pal: <it sounds like there is consensus here is> to continue
    with the scope of FO Council as defined in the draft, just want
    to document my minority opinion
    … trying to find right way to do that

    florian: We can close this issue as "commenter not satisfied",
    which will be seen in Disposition of Comments

    pal: that sounds great, I'll add a last comment then with my
    position

    florian: One thing on the record to push back on
    … notion that TAG is not technical experts... sounds like a
    questionable thing to me. They *are* technical experts
    … and half of Council is the TAG

    plh: So proposal is to close the issue, with minority opinion
    of Pierre-Anthony
    … and as usual happy to open if new information
    … objections?

    RESOLUTION: Close 628 no change, flag Commenter Not Satisfied

   Informal Review

    plh: what's the status?

    florian: I was tasked with doing changelog, and was busy and am
    late
    … there is a changelog, I'm just unsure it's complete

    plh: eta?

    florian: [explains schedule]

    plh: With Thanksgiving approaching, closer we get to end of
    November the less attention we get

    florian: understood, can't promise this week but can do next
    week

    pal: Another administrative question, I'd like to review
    minutes before posted

    <TallTed> the `s/incorrect/correct/` tool can be used
    immediately (if we're using the typical tooling)

    florian: usually you can correct on the fly, for this group
    it's bene good enough, but if not you can aks the chairs to
    make edits

    plh: I'll give you 24 hours, send me any additional corrections
    … they get generated automatically

     Meeting Schedule

    plh: two people said Wednesdays are not great, might need to
    rediscuss the day of the week
    … maybe make a poll?

    florian: random number generator, different day each time!

    fantasai: just send a poll, might as well

    plh: if nothing interesting comes out of poll then we'll leave
    Wednesdays

     Proposal for a Directorate

    florian: [summarizes issue]

    github: [21]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/457

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/457

    florian: I'm not sure Mike is convinced we picked the best
    path, but convinced we're not going in that direction

    plh: Should we flag it as commenter not satisfied?

    florian: I think we need to mark differently the cases where
    the commenter disagrees with closing the issue

    fantasai: He's not objecting, so I think we don't need to do
    anything special

   End

    [review of action items]

    florian: I think we should action some combination of chairs
    and editors to remember why it is the PRs are different, why
    each one has some difference that we want to keep
    … we have a reason for not accepting wseltzer's PR, but I
    forget what it is

    florian: When I do get to writing the changelog, do we have
    group clearance to immediately send the informal review
    request?

    fantasai: We agreed that I would draft announcement, send to
    jeff for review, and then send it out

    Meeting closed.

Summary of resolutions

     1. [22]Merge #669
     2. [23]Defer 653 for 2023, unless mnot pushes back
     3. [24]Close 628 no change, flag Commenter Not Satisfied


     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     [25]scribe.perl version 196 (Thu Oct 27 17:06:44 2022 UTC).

      [25] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2022 21:42:21 UTC