- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 11:06:56 -0500
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Minutes are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2023/02/08-w3process-minutes.html
Text version:
Process CG meeting
08 February 2023
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Feb/0002.html
[3] https://www.w3.org/2023/02/08-w3process-irc
Attendees
Present
Chris_O'Brien, cwilso, Dingwei__, florian, npd, plh,
TallTed, tzviya, wendyreid
Regrets
Elika
Chair
plh
Scribe
wendyreid
Contents
1. [4]Pull Requests to Review
2. [5]Council / Guide Review
Meeting minutes
plh: Anything else that people would like to talk about?
florian: We have new participants, we should remind ourselves
where we are
… we are in the wrap-up phase of the current process cycle
… two themes, new process compatible with W3C Inc
… and second, phase out the dependency on the director
… focus was on that
… and there are some pending PRs to review today
… today is the time to look at everything, have we done
something good enough to launch
… do we have any showstoppers to deal with
… are there any issues we need to address later?
florian: Anything else?
plh: Wendy, do you want us to touch on your issue?
wendyreid: No it's ok
Pull Requests to Review
plh: let's look at the work in PRs
… 701
<plh> Github: [6]w3c/w3process#701
[6] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/701
plh: clarify the role of the team contact and define the term
florian: I will introduce
… this is an editorial PR, we define who and what the team
contact is
… mention they are there to support the council
… they are there to help
… stepping stone to the next PR
plh: I approved, but previously, the team was not participating
in the council, it's hard to assist when you are out of the
loop
… it's important to introduce the definition
… any objections?
… going... going... merge!
<plh> Github: [7]w3c/w3process#702
[7] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/702
plh: for PR 702, using the definition
florian: This one is to define how the team contact can
participate, they can participate in the council
… due to confidentiality, they could not previously. This was
preventing team contacts from helping
… includes the Team Contact as a particpant, but a non-voting
one
plh: As part of the consideration for nominating the team
contact, we want to avoid conflict of interest
… the team contact of the group under formal objection would
not be the team contact for the council
… to avoid conflict
florian: This question was raised to the AB directly, and the
AB resolved to do this
… it's less should we do it, and more how to phrase it
… Ted has mentioned a broader problem about mentioning the
council, when there could be several
… he logged a new issue
… we should deal with that
… aside from that, my take is that this PR is ok
Dingwei__: In my experience in the FO council
<npd> +1 for confidentiality including team contact
Dingwei__: I get a feeling sometimes, we don't have all of the
people who can answer
… we might want to propose that the body raising the FO
participate to help with explaining the facts
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to dingwei
Dingwei__: would be helpful to have that information
florian: This is deliberate but, the current situation is not
that the council cannot hear from them
… they can invite anyone they need details from
… anyone they find important to listen to
… if the council feels they know enough, they don't have to
… having the team contact will help with some of this too
… may be able to share facts
… still have the ability to hear from anyone
Dingwei__: Florian you are speaking from a process perspective,
but when we are organizing an FO council, the invitations do
not go out to all of these parties
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about guidelines for FO
Council
tzviya: I jut wanted to mention what goes in the process is not
what will go in the documentation for the chair council
… more detailed information for what will happen will go there,
does not need to be in the process
… Dingwei__ I think you are right, but that is documentation
for the council and Yves is working on it
plh: We have flexibility to put things in the guide to make it
operational
florian: In the first council we did invite the objector and
WG, as we had questions, we didn't do it for the most recent
one
… initial invites go to the council, but we can invite others
TallTed: It seems that it would make sense to refer to that
other guide in the process document
… to make it clear not all the details are there
plh: Agreed, once that documentation appears, we will link to
it
TallTed: Suggesting a handwave reference now, since several of
us are not aware of it
plh: How should we handle that?
florian: hand-wavy references already exist, but one that goes
to a document that doesn't exist yet is more challenging
<TallTed> +1 for issue as placeholder
plh: Maybe one that reminds us we need to add the reference
once available
TallTed: Works for me
plh: Any objections to merging 702?
… will pen a seperate issue for a reference
<npd> is there an issue already for the Guide on best practice
for running a Council?
plh: let's merge 702
… 709!
<plh> Github: [8]w3c/w3process#709
[8] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/709
florian: Another one the AB has approved
… looking to check if the wording is fine, it may be necessary
to replace a chair of the council
… due to time, or other reasons, request from the AB is that we
enable the team contact to relaunch chair selection if
suggested by the chair or the group
plh: With the expectation that it should not be a surprise to
the council
florian: Yes
npd: I'm confused by this, I understand if the chair has to
step down, but this text doesn't suggest that
… this seems like if the team contact wants a new chair
… they can iniate the change
florian: If that happens, the council can reselect the same
chair
… but it should not be a surprise
… we didn't give them the ability to pick a chair, only
initiate the process
plh: Let me add, the phrasing is "oh the team can do whatever
they want", but that can also be clarified in the guide
… we already get criticism on the length of the guide
… focus on implementation of the process
… as long as they are checks in the process
tzviya: I think the wording is clunky, doesn't read like checks
and balances
… chair selection is done by the council
florian: The wording is that the team contact can initiate the
chair selection
plh: Members of the AB are here
tzviya: We were focused on the resolution, not the wording,
leaving it to process
plh: Do we have enough information to proceed?
florian: It does not highlight the checks and balance, but
they're there
… a guide article that explains everything would help
plh: How many people think we need to reword this?
tzviya: Maybe end the sentence earlier
npd: This seems more confusing
TallTed: Threw a small tweak in
… "or by the chair"
florian: I think it's friendlier, but makes no difference to
the process
… maybe that is making the process longer, or friendlier
TallTed: Here is where I don't think 4 words adds to the length
plh: Ok, are we ok with the new wording?
florian: works for me
<npd> I can live with that
plh: Ok! Merge once the tweak is added
npd: It would be good to have more in the guide, are we
tracking issues for the guide
plh: We agreed to create an issue to add the link for the
documentation, we can include that, we're aware of everything
needing to go in the documentation
florian: This is not the guide CG, the guide is mostly done by
the team, but in the open
plh: If anyone here would like to review the guide, it is more
than welcome
<npd> sure, I just wanted to have a place to track suggestions
and contributions, even if a separate group (the Team) handles
it
<plh> Github: [9]w3c/w3process#703
[9] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/703
plh: To 703
florian: This one is a little longer
… also backed by an AB resolution
… how to deal with hypothetical cases of running into a formal
objection where it's obvious to everyone what needs to be done
… do we need to do the whole process of forming a council to
just do the obvious thing
… this forms a shortcut
… when the team writes the report, it can provide a
recommendation, the new thing is if the entire possible council
agrees on the recommendation, we go ahead with that
… if there is any opposition, we proceed with the council
… aside from people renouncing their seat, where people are
forbidden from participating in the council for legal reasons
or ther
… questions?
plh: The comment is on Github, can we please drop the word
"absurd"
TallTed: Added a comment to address that
plh: Florian are you ok to change that?
florian: Yes
plh: If we take Ted's suggestion in, any other objections to
merge 703?
… then we can reuse precedence
<npd> thanks for addressing that wording change, +1
florian: I don't suspect this will be used often, but will save
time in the cases it applies to
plh: going going merge!
… 704
<plh> Github: [10]w3c/w3process#704
[10] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/704
florian: This one is probably more subtle
… the process has had this notion of a memorandum of
understanding
… a contract-like thing
… it's a particular class of agreements between W3C and others
to understand what W3C does
… when we partner up with groups like WHATWG, or merge with
IDPF
… we make contract-like things, MoUs, this was previously dealt
with by the director
… we'd like to move this to the team and CEO, but when they
want to sign such a thing
… they need to get the approval of the AC
… and the AC could appeal
… mightthat interfere with the role of the board?
… this PR tries to clarify that the team may negotiate these
things, and AC review can happen, AC can appeal, this can be
overridden by the board
… the team on its own cannot sign an MoU where a successful
appeal is present, but the Board can
… especially in cases of urgency
… if something happens where the membership and Board disagree,
Board overrides
plh: This is the first time in the process where we link to the
board?
florian: No, there's another mention for AB liaisons
plh: I think the team and the board need to figure this out
… my concern is that this is a slippery slope
… encourage the board to step into process
… it could bite us
npd: I got on the queue to talk separately about the review and
appeal process could be a delay
… I don't know every case of an MoU
… but if the team needs to operate using these MoUs, with the
review process it might prevent signing
plh: This doesn't change having an AC review and appeal
florian: Yes, you're right npd that is why this is a SHOULD not
MUST. Sometimes there is a need for a rush and there is the
possibility of that
… to PLH's point, we might want counsel advice
… the process is a normative reference of the member agreement
… it has contractural value
… the board can weigh that in, the Board could instruct the
team to sign a contract that fails appeal
… but it might violate the member agreement without a clause
like this
… in every case they can do it, but one involves contract
violation
plh: I worry we're opening pandora's box
florian: My alternative worry, the Board may say contracts are
not a concern of the AC
… the MoU about the WHATWG should not be a board matter, for
example
plh: I was talking with dsinger about this, difference between
an MoU and an agreement
… not going to object to the changes
… but not surprised when the board asks for revisions
florian: We should inform the board of this change
… if it seems reasonable to us, we should get their feedback
plh: Action item to review with the board
<npd> would we want to say the Board can override in cases of
operational necessity for the organization?
plh: let's not merge this one today
… let's get feedback from at least the interim CEO
florian: Note to the AB chairs, this is also tagged as getting
AB feedback
… if we think its plausible, we should get feedback
plh: Let's move on
… we are now on 705
<plh> GitHub: [11]w3c/w3process#705
[11] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/705
florian: Proposed by Ian Jacobs, per the membership agreement
but a phrase that doesn't live in the agreement
… it's more accurate to say per the IPR process
… we can drop the reference, it can be found in the document we
are actually pointing to
plh: Any objection? Ok let's merge 705
… last one for today
<plh> GitHub: [12]w3c/w3process#706
[12] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/706
plh: 706
florian: Very editorial
… we had a sentence at the beginning of the council composition
… more of the sentence was dedicated to exceptions than the
detail
… this PR modifies that to make it easier to read
… we have been iterating on variants
plh: There were some suggestions
florian: I looked at some and agree with some parts
plh: What's the proposal at this point?
florian: I agree with parts
plh: I don't see a change in the proposal
florian: I am asking for help
… I was fine with the initial one, but Elika had comments
… if it's necessary to modify the langage of the section
… suggestion to say members of the council are selected from,
suggests a large pool
… but then we are back
… maybe we can keep the long one, or short with "each" instead
of "the"
plh: Let's not take this PR, look at Ted's issue (710), and
address this as part of that
florian: We don't seem to have reached consensus
plh: We are not merging 706
… do we want to send this for review?
… I am reluctant to make changes while the AB is reviewing it
… understanding we won't allow ourselves to make substantive
changes during AB review
… are there any other issues we think need addressing?
… if no, let's start the 2 week review period
… decide in 2 weeks to send to AB
<Zakim> npd, you wanted to comment on next steps for review
npd: That answers my question, we're taking a hard look before
AB or AC?
plh: The way we're going to work, we're working under the
authority of the AB for this editorial work, in order for us to
make decisions, we need 2 weeks to review the document and the
issues, let's move forward
… we've been asking people to review for a few weeks, but today
I am asking formally for 2 weeks of review
… to send to the AB
… once we make the decision, the bar to accept a change is much
higher
florian: We can open a new branch
plh: For any changes beyond editorial, we would need to cycle
back
npd: Process CG will have it's last review now, but AB can
contribute
florian: Since we didn't merge the PR on MoU's, we could say
"we're done aside from this PR"
… then ask for advice
plh: I'm fine with asking as part of that
… it's fair game
… so you've been warned, please review the process and issues
in the next 2 weeks
… congrats everyone
… lot of issues on the process, plenty to do
… pressure to dive into other topics
npd: Can't stop people from commenting
florian: I want to switch topics for the last 2 minutes
… introduce the council/guide review
Council / Guide Review
florian: worked with Elika on this, there are multiple pieces
in /guide that need to exist
… we probably need a council chair guide
… we probably need a guide for the team on the mechanics
… this one is a general intro for the general public on what a
council is and what it does
… this derives from an article written by Jeff early on
… some of the opinions did not pan out and have been removed,
and we've recycled other parts
… that's the article
… we'll need something for team and running council
plh: The team may take an action to work on this, and Tzviya
said she'd have a discussion with Yves
florian: Guide article for council chairs
plh: I don't think we meant to limit it
… glad we are working on it
florian: This is not meant to be decision
… but this group wants a guide
… a first draft of one of the pieces that must exist
… I think it's one of three pieces
plh: Not sure it needs to be member-only
florian: It could be in member-visible too
plh: Could be in guide
florian: We didn't write it from scratch from where Jeff
created it
plh: Glad to see the work
… FYI for folks here
… no time to talk about the upcoming issues
… 700 from Wendy
… I'm getting criticism on the length and complexity of the
process
… not something we can address in this revision possibly
… one of the challenge is that the process is too complex
… even though we're adding more with director-free
florian: Making it easier will not be easy
plh: Thanks everyone!
… next meeting in 2 weeks
<plh> [adjourned]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[13]scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2023 16:06:58 UTC