- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 16:05:12 -0500
- To: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
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