- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:52:39 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Available at
https://www.w3.org/2022/09/08-w3process-minutes.html
Text version:
W3C Process Community Group
Attendees
Present
jeff, Léonie (tink), plh, florian, fantasai, wseltzer, dsinger
Regrets
-
Chair
plh
Scribe
fantasai, florian
Contents
1. [2]TPAC Session
2. [3]Agenda Bashing
3. [4]Proposed to Close
1. [5]CEO participation in Council
4. [6]Pull Requests
1. [7]Precedence of Documents
2. [8]Director-free TAG
5. [9]623 Recusal to Dismissal
1. [10]Process Text vs Guide
2. [11]Strong Pre-existing Opinion
3. [12]Contesting Reasons to Dismiss
4. [13]Reporting who served
6. [14]New Issues
1. [15]Ensuring charters fit the mission and values of
W3C
7. [16]Any Other Business
8. [17]Summary of action items
9. [18]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
TPAC Session
[discussion of slide deck]
jeff: challenge the audience a bit
… Director-free is important
… We're doing a capable job, but needs broader community
involvement
plh: Timeline is starting AC review of new Process in Q1 of
2023
… so we can approve in early Q2
florian: That would be good.
florian: Like Jeff said, I think we're not that far off, but
need help to get in the right place
Agenda Bashing
jeff: Links would be useful
plh: online version has it
… I just did a copy-paste of the text
[plh reviews the agenda]
plh: anything else to bring up?
Proposed to Close
CEO participation in Council
github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/284
[19] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/284
plh: Draft currently lists CEO officially as partof Council
… any objection to close?
florian: seems reasonable
RESOLUTION: Closed #284
Pull Requests
Precedence of Documents
plh: wseltzer, did you have time?
wseltzer: Looked back at my previous comment on 599 and I have
not done more
… was proposing to close and merge bits into a single PR
plh: that's fine, but you have the next step to propose the PR
wseltzer: can someone clarify what we need to do?
florian: I think we had a reason for not agreeing, can't
remember
plh: bunch of comments on 599
fantasai: I can't review issues and take minutes at the same
time :)
… I can take an action to review and send a summary of where I
think we're at to wseltzer
dsinger: 599 says patent policy takes precedence, but not over
what
ACTION: fantasai to send email to wseltzer summarizing what's
going on with 599 and 572
plh: not urgent in any case, can address in November
Director-free TAG
github: [20]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/611
[20] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/611
plh: 2 weeks ago ppl were reviewing text, and expect to merge
at this meeting
… did ppl hvae time to review, and can we merge?
florian: There were two comments from mnot that I think were
okay to resolve with no change
… in one he's asking if it should be explicit that ratification
takes place before announcement
… and next sentence says Team announces "ratified appointment",
can't do that if not already ratified
… And then the next question was if the appointments must be
three, or can be fewer
… the way the text is set up now, it's a SHOULD
… in case failed to find someone
… shouldn't invalidate TAG
… I don't think TAG would be happy if TAG were permanently
smaller
… have a lot of work and being many is good
… I think is fine as-is
… so closing that comment no change
… rest of comments were editorial tweaks
florian: still separate issue on consecutive terms, whether
required to stand for election
… but decided to pursue that in parallel, and change the text
florian: so unless someone has a complaint I think we're good
to go
plh: that issue was 613
… continuity of TAG appointments
fantasai: +1 to merging
… also agree with the way Florian resolved the comments
RESOLUTION: Merge #611 Director-free TAG
florian: Please don't click the button, need to untangle all
the branches!
623 Recusal to Dismissal
plh: Where do you think we are on this?
florian: I think it's good to touch base on this, but not land
… some editorial comments addressed
… and some interesting substantive comments, which we could
discuss today or at TPAC
plh: I didn't put a breakout for ProcessCG at TPAC
… usually we're all busy with other things
florian: then talk about this today
Process Text vs Guide
florian: In the middle of this dismissal process, in the
version we've been using
… there's a list of example reasons why people might want the
Council to consider dismissing someone
… I think it's good to write down these reasons
… but one question is, does this list go in the Process or in
/Guide?
<wseltzer> +1 to /Guide
florian: It is not an exhaustive list, and it doesn't do
anything automatically
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest that the potential
reasons should go into /guide
florian: checking any one of these boxes does not result in
dismissal, it's things to consider
dsinger: it's weird list, obviously incomplete, mixof reasons
… I think it belongs in /Guide
… I think it's weirdly out of place in the Process
plh: sounds like we're in agreement to move this to /Guide
florian: It might be useful to write this part of /Guide
… and have a placeholder URL that we can point to from the
Process
… but agree this is suboptimal here
plh: Sounds like I should take an action item to write the PR
for /Guide
ACTION: plh to write a corresponding PR against /Guide
plh: I'm guessing whatever page I come up with will grow bigger
and bigger, since desciribes a bunch of Council stuff
… who is doing what and precisely etc.
florian: I agree this should go in /Guide as well
Strong Pre-existing Opinion
florian: going down the list, next comments from chaals
… removing one item from this list
… maybe don't need to discuss today since moving to /Guide
… he was suggesting to remove "strong pre-existing opinion"
… discuss in /Guide CG :)
plh: we don't have a /Guide CG :)
jeff: Didn't really understand where chaals is coming from
… saying it's hard to measure if strong pre-existing opinion
… which may be true, but, it does seem to me that leaving that
as a criteria is still appropriate
florian: It's a tricky one
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to respond to Jeff
dsinger: I agree with jeff, it's not about having strong
opinions, but that their ability to be open-minded is
reasonably in doubt
jeff: yes, that expresses my concern
florian: So maybe we need to rephrase this rather than remove
it
florian: I suggest we don't ignore this, but tackle at lower
priority
plh: I will put that reason in /Guide PR and argue over there
Contesting Reasons to Dismiss
florian: Next question in document order is one from me
… before the Council forms, present list of members and reasons
to dismiss to the Council
… and then Council votes on each member
… It seems useful to insert a step where ppl who got comments
about them have a chance to explain
… since the comments are not vetted, not necessarily true
… I haven't proposed specific wording, but I think we should
have something there
jeff: As one person who has been successfully dismissed
… I strongly agree with Florian
<fantasai> +1
plh: I'm okay with it, as long as we're not adding another week
or two of delay
florian: We send ppl who vote, and they have a week to respond;
during that week ppl who have been made claims about can
explain away or give more background
plh: what's preventing that today?
jeff: We do need to add a week, since I think the explanation
needs to go with the ballot
… if I'm away during first 3 days, didn't get a chance to
comment
… I'm not worried about a week
… our delays aren't in going once we're started, we're losing
weeks and months getting started
<dsinger> +1 to insert "potential members may respond to the
reasons offered for their dismissal" (e.g. "not the same David
Singer")
plh: I'm skeptical about adding a week
… do we expect Team to share the reasons with the individual
before sending the entire list to the Council?
… and then have a week to comment on the list?
dsinger: The Team member should send list to Council, we'll be
opening vote in one week, does anyone want to comment on the
reasons for your own dismissal?
florian: I agree something along these lines is worth doing
plh: sgtm
dsinger: We had a case where someone complained that I had
helped craft the TAG charter; I pointed out this was the other
David Singer from IBM
ACTION: florian to craft wording for this
Reporting who served
florian: next was reporting on who was dismissed, who renounce,
and who qualifies to serve
… unsure if reporting who was qualified to serve, but didn't
participate
… voters might want to know who is serving for what they've
been elected
… and related is what about abstention?
… I have two different opinions on this, but want to hear from
others
plh: I favor transparency as much as possible
dsinger: I commented that report should list [insert comment]
dsinger: I'm sure we should not say who voted which way, but
community should know who served
florian: Way currently set up is that we aim for consensus, and
if we fail, we can tie-break using formal vote
<dsinger> as commented in [21]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/
pull/623/files#r964272532
[21] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/623/files#r964272532
florian: in process of trying to establish consensus can do
straw polls, but that's not formal vote
… when you go for consensus, you don't ask every single one are
you explicitly saying yes or no
… we have a proposal that seems to have support of room, does
anyone object?
… when you do that, abstentions are not distinct from anything
else
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to support Florian
dsinger: In one session X asked to be officially recorded as
abstaining
jeff: Once someone is part of Council, they will giving their
opinions and analysis, which may heavily influence the decision
… and then to "formally abstain", that abstention is misleading
… because they have contributed analysis to why decision should
be made a certain way
… that could even be the case of, well I convinced enough
people now I can abstain formally
… I believe the ppl who would like to formally abstain should
decline participation
florian: I think there's also another tradeoff here, which is a
question of time
… I think a cleaner way to say "I've things to contribute, but
don't want to participate" is to recuse
… and then offer to testify as a witness
… But this can take awhile, because need to identify witnesses,
and then schedule them, and then discuss the results
fantasai: Don't see why process for Council members should be
different from other witnesses
jeff: Reasons to do and not to do
… but based on my conversations within W3M about the PRAPI case
… I had some opinions going into it, and would've been
interested to share with Council
… Could say that's a good reason to have testimony
… or could say that's a reason to not do these things because
it takes time
… but I think what Florian's describing will happen in practie
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to agree with Jeff but it's mostly
relevant if there is a formal vote (and even that leaves
influence)
dsinger: I appreciate what jeff is saying, and in the last
Council the decision was consensus anyway
… irrelevant about abstentions
… influence of the vote
… maybe Council members can say whatever they want about what
they did on the Council
… but the formal report states they were qualified to serve
… Then that leaves the question of, did they turn up
plh: As a reminder, I don't think we encoded into Process, in
case of dissent within Council
… dissenters can write an opinion
florian: yes, that's in the Process: you can have a minority
report
plh: I'm not hearing a proposal to change
florian: Wording already says that we include the naes of those
dismissed, renounced, and qualified to serve
… I think we have agreement to at least list those who did
participate vs not
… and didn't have agreement to list abstentions
dsinger: Should maybe also state that Councilmembers may report
on their own involvement, but not on others' participation
plh: Proceedings of Council are confidential to the Council
anyway
dsinger: So could say " I didn't take part in the decision, but
did take part in the discussions" and people can take from that
what they like
dsinger: My action item was to put into PR
florian: I can take it from there
plh: Thanks dsinger and florian
New Issues
Ensuring charters fit the mission and values of W3C
plh: I'm not sure we can do a lot in this iteration of the
Process
<wseltzer> +1 to defer
plh: at minimum I expect us to defer for now
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest that we say that
individual council members MAY report on their own
participation (but not others) and that absence should be
recorded
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on #620
jeff: I provided some logic in a post last night
… which if you want could be used to close the issue
… I think it's important that charters fit the mission and
values of W3C
… I believe the process that we have is sufficient to take care
of that
… and I think trying to go through some mega-definition of the
mission and values and create a new specific process under that
… would result in a very long process text
… which would not serve a lot of purpose
… so I won't argue strongly for that, it's just my input
github: [22]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/620
[22] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/620
<dsinger> +1 to Jeff. We have HAD charters where the AC has had
a lively discussion over whether something is in scope, fits
mission and values
florian: I partly agree with Jeff, but only partly
… I agree that we fundamentally have the right framework
… and that the AC approving a charter is the thing that ensures
it serves the mission of W3C
… but as mentioned in other issues, what happens prior to AC
review needs improvement
… Horizontal review, and review from AB and TAG, there's a
number of areas where we could improve the pre-WBS review of
charters
… and the info that goes into that review
… and that will strengthen the fundamental framework that the
AC ultimately decides the fitness of the charter
… whether we close this now or later, I'm unsure
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to agree with Florian
jeff: I agree with Florian
… we have other issues raised against specific things like TAG
review, and much cleaner to deal with specific issues like "TAG
shoudl review or not" rather than intergalactic issues like
this one
<dsinger> (I also agree that TAG and AB should be given
opportunity to comment, and the usual HR groups, and for
charters offered by other than Team, the team too, and that all
such comments should be evident in AC review)
<plh> [23]https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html
[23] https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html
plh: Process for horizontal review of charters is in /Guide
right now
… we have horizontal Team people who are in charge of ensuring
it gets done, but not how it gets done
… e.g. idk if Yves goes to the TAG
… We definitely don't have anyone from AB, and if we want to
put AB in the loop could do that
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to +1 jeff and florian
plh: Maybe should improve /Guide and link to that part of the
/Guide from the Process
<plh> fantasai: agreed with Jeff and Florian.
fantasai: I agree with Jeff and Florian, this is something to
work on in specific issues, and there's nothing to do in this
issue
plh: So I'll put Propose to Close flag on it
plh: wseltzer, anything you want to look at from /Guide
perspective?
wseltzer: I always welcome suggestions to improve the /Guide
florian: I think this meta-issue is not useful
… but the individual issues are
… and see that there is appetite for additional improvements
from the Membership
… some in /Guide and some in /Process
wseltzer: Then I should move to quickly update the /Guide
plh: I did put Propose to Close on the issue, and will assign
the issue to wseltzer
florian: Do it in /Guide or Process is one question
… another question is do we do it with one large issue that
talks about everything, or in individual issues for specific
improvements
… I prefer the latter
… not prepared to say today that all the improvements belong in
/Guide
jeff: Could close by saying that those issue that should be
Process issues, people should raise individual issues and raise
TAG thing as an example
… and what goes into /Guide raise against /Guide
plh: so we should treat as a more granular level
plh: perhaps Florian we should sit down and split up the issue?
florian: we have some already
plh: if conclusion is we already have issue and don't need to
open more
florian: I think we should propose to close this, and work on
the individual issues, and if we're not happy with the result
we can work on it some more
dsinger: Specific comment is that AC is supposed to review for
scope mission and values
… that's one of the reasons for AC review
plh: [missed]
github: [24]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/620
[24] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/620
plh: Ok I'll comment that we will close in 4 weeks, and ppl
should open new issues if they want something specific
addressed
Any Other Business
plh: need to check if got AB feedback on AB-feedback issues
plh: In the Agenda I split issues into Needs Proposed PR
… have a bunch of such issues
… so starting in October I will try to assign those to make
sure we have ppl who will take responsibility for writing a PR
for those things
… and we do have a bunch of remaining DF issues
florian: I think this is going to get easier soon, because
we've solved quite a few related PRs
… both for issues that need PRs and those that don't
… we need to do a round of triage, and for half the issues
we've already solved
… many are overlapping, or stale
… so we will need to do that kind of triage soon
plh: Feel free to add proposed to Close for anything already
resolved
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on #497
jeff: I had raised 497 anonymous formal objections before
dsinger raised 618 ability to defer decisions
… I think we struggled with handling anonymous objections
… given we have deferral available
… wanted to get reactions to [missed]
florian: I think this is thought-provoking and interesting, but
not ovious that it's right or wrong
… but for Council to be able to decide to delegate a decision,
they need to know what it's about
… so you still need to give some summary of what the objection
iss
… Council might decide to handle the decision with the Team as
proxy
jeff: Not saying all anonymous FOs need to be deferred
… in some cases maybe okay to proceed with anonymity and full
council
… but it's an interesting tool to have, ability to delegate
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to agree with Jeff and Florian
dsinger: I find myself agreeing with both of use
… it's a good use case to mention for deferral
… e.g. Council realizies it can't process this and respect
anonymity, and delegates to some unit
… but in many cases can address question without compromising
anonymity
… So to 618, do we add possible reason to defer as "can't
process this while respecting anonymity"
plh: okay, I'll put a comment on 618 and then propose to close
497
… and ppl can check
<plh> fantasai: we'll do triage of issues after TPAC
dsinger: if anyone really wants to join, we'll be here in SF,
but it'll just be a working session
plh: if you need me more than welcome to ask to join remotely
plh: next meeting is Thursday after TPAC
… we should process any feedback from TPAC
Meeting closed.
Summary of action items
1. [25]fantasai to send email to wseltzer summarizing what's
going on with 599 and 572
2. [26]plh to write a corresponding PR against /Guide
3. [27]florian to craft wording for this
Summary of resolutions
1. [28]Closed #284
2. [29]Merge #611 Director-free TAG
Received on Friday, 9 September 2022 19:52:56 UTC