- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 16:58:47 -0500
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Available at:
https://www.w3.org/2023/10/11-w3process-minutes.html
Process CG
11 October 2023
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Oct/0000.html
[3] https://www.w3.org/2023/10/11-w3process-irc
Attendees
Present
cwilso, dingwei, fantasai, florian, TallTed
Regrets
plh
Chair
fantasai
Scribe
fantasai
Contents
1. [4]Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review
1. [5]Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on
their own Decisions
2. [6]Require reporting of dismissal vote countes
2. [7]Substantive PRs to Review
1. [8]CR Snapshots need to address wide review issues
2. [9]Default custodianship for Registries if custodian
no longer available
3. [10]Editorial PRs to Review
1. [11]Clarify what TAG+AB “approval” means:
2. [12]Clarify that registering an FO triggers process to
address it
4. [13]Issues to Discuss
1. [14]Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals
2. [15]Council Composition requirements include Tim
Berners-Lee, TAG life member
5. [16]Any Other Business
6. [17]Summary of action items
7. [18]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
scribenick: Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review
Follow-up on Process 2023 AC Review
florian: We had agreed to merge these, missed cycle, so we
should do these
Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on their own Decisions
github: [19]w3c/w3process#749
[19] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/749
PR: [20]w3c/w3process#761
[20] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761
florian: This is not excluding TAG and AB from Councils on what
they do, but only from a vote if it comes down to a vote
florian: This is a PR with an option, there is a question in
the phrasing
florian: proposed text is if it the decision/proposal
originated from TAG then members of that group must abstain
from the group OR members of the group *at the time*
florian: I have a slight preference for keeping the fuller
version, because it fully covers what we intend to do
florian: but it's more complicated to express, and the
difference may not be all that important
Changes: [21]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761/files
[21] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761/files
cwilso: Either way is OK with me, but slight preference to keep
the bracketed text
PROPOSAL: Merge PR including bracketed text
<cwilso> +1
<TallTed> +1
<florian> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR761 including bracketed text
Require reporting of dismissal vote countes
github: [22]w3c/w3process#748
[22] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748
PR: [23]w3c/w3process#760
[23] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760
Changes: [24]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760/files
[24] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760/files
florian: Still looks good to me as months ago :)
cwilso: Issue filed was for something else and AB decided to do
something different that sort-of touches the same spot
cwilso: Not clear whether this resolves the issue or is a
different optimization
cwilso: issue filer didn't ever weigh in after AB resolution
See [25]https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/
2023-05-24-doc#issue-15A
[25]
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-05-24-doc#issue-15A
15A, 15B, 16
fantasai: This is covered in the DoC.
fantasai: I split it into sub-issues in DoC
fantasai: Goal of the commenters was to increase confidence in
the Council
fantasai: we decided to do that through transparency instead of
changing vote thresholds
florian: Did something different from what was requirements,
but contradicting requests, so we did the best to address what
was asked
cwilso: I'm OK with the change, it wasn't clear if this
resolves their concern or if we think this is necessary to
increase transparency
florian: You can't do both what Mark and what Nigel wanted :)
fantasai: Going back up to what the commenters wanted, they
wanted confidence that the dismissal process was something they
could trust in
fantasai: in general, we've not had much dissent in the
dismissal process (if at all)
fantasai: so showing that makes it clear to the AC how much
consensus there was in the Council about its composition, and
the confidence the Council has in its membership
florian: Regardless of whether Mark or Nigel or both are
satisfied, I still think it's a good change, so we should land
it
florian: maybe that will be enough, maybe there will be follow
up, but either way let's do it
PROPOSAL: Merge PR 760
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 760
Substantive PRs to Review
CR Snapshots need to address wide review issues
github: [26]w3c/w3process#781
[26] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/781
PR: [27]w3c/w3process#787
[27] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787
fantasai: People inside the group can object to publishing a
CRS, but people outside the group can be ignored indefinitely
fantasai: so this trying to fix this by giving the Team some
discretion in denying a CRS
Changes: [28]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787/files
[28] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/787/files
<florian> fantasai: we already have CRD, which people can
publish at will
florian: Fact that ppl can ignore issues is not true for
transition requests (changing stage)
florian: This doesn't make it a requirement to address all the
issues, but sets expectation that you should make some progress
on such issues, and allows Team to deny CRS if not
<florian> fantasai: any other opinion?
TallTed: Just one grammar fix
florian: pre-existing wording, but could fix as we go?
PROPOSED: Merge PR 787
<TallTed> +1
<florian> +1, including TallTed's tweak
<cwilso> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 787
Default custodianship for Registries if custodian no longer
available
github: [29]w3c/w3process#699
[29] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/699
PR: [30]w3c/w3process#790
[30] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790
Changes: [31]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files
[31] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files
florian: We have notion of a registry custodian
… when a WG sets up a registry, they describe the tables etc.
but also who has the ability to update it
… can be WG itself, coudl be a CG, could be the Team
… But what happens if that body ceases to exist?
… if you still have a WG around, you can fix it
… but if no WG?
… This empowers the Team to propose to the AC a new custodian
… otherwise have to spin up a new WG to make the revision
TallTed: As I understand, there would only be one custodian, so
should be "the custodian" vs "a custodian"
florian: Interesting nuance is that we anticipate that although
it might be uncommon, the rules allow a registry to contain
multiple tables, and possible for each table could have a
different custodian
… allowed by the rules, though unlikely
TallTed: My concern is that it's the last custodian of a given
segment
florian: When we were preparing this, the way fantasai said to
think of it was that if multiple groups are empowered to update
a table, then collectively those groups are the custodian
florian: I suspect in practice it won't make a difference
[discussion of this grammar point]
<florian> fantasai: we allowed each table to have a different
custodian
<florian> fantasai: but for each table, the custodian could be
a person, a group, a set of groups…
TallTed: I'd like to take a stab at rephrasing, so let's not
merge today
<florian> fantasai: so a registry could have multiple tables,
each with a different custodian, and some of those custodians
might be sets of multiple groups
florian: that's fair. I think your concern is, for a particular
table we allow group A or group B, then no need to replace one
that's gone since still one active custodian
fantasai: if we can do that without making the phrasing
overcomplicated...
florian: alternatively, remove notion of custodian per table
TallTed: I think the more complicated handling is probably
going to happen, given where some groups are going
fantasai: do we want to resolve to merge with editorial tweaks
delegated to editors / Ted?
TallTed, florian: seems fine
PROPOSED: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial
tweaks
Editorial PRs to Review
Clarify what TAG+AB “approval” means:
github: [32]w3c/w3process#741
[32] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/741
PR: [33]w3c/w3process#788
[33] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788
<florian> fantasai: we didn't specificy what we mean by
"approval" in approval of TAG+AB
Changes: [34]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788/files
[34] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/788/files
<florian> fantasai: we meant according to their usual rules
<florian> fantasai: so this PR clarifies that
TallTed: Decision by each of TAG and AB?
fantasai: yes
PROPOSED: Merge PR788
<florian> +1
<cwilso> +1
<TallTed> +1 with editorial tweak
RESOLUTION: Merge PR788
Clarify that registering an FO triggers process to address it
github: [35]w3c/w3process#739
[35] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/739
PR: [36]w3c/w3process#789
[36] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789
<florian> fantasai: this is about the fact that it wasn't clear
that filing an FO triggers the process to handle FOs
Changes: [37]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789/files
[37] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/789/files
<florian> fantasai: so we added a sentence to make that more
explicit
florian: Original text, if you read the process for handling
them, it has a deadline from the registration date of the FO
florian: but didn't hook up explicitly from the FO filing
section
[38]https://www.w3.org/2023/
Process-20230612/#registering-objections
[38] https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#registering-objections
TallTed: "filing" an FO doesn't trigger handling though
fantasai: process uses registration
florian: There is a difference between filing and registering,
but once a thing has been filed, it will become registered at
the end of the AC Review period
florian: Process describes deadlines relative to registration
TallTed: good enough
PROPOSAL: Merge PR 789
<TallTed> +1
<florian> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 789
Issues to Discuss
Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals
github: [39]w3c/w3process#786
[39] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/786
florian: mnot raised an interesting set of questions related to
disciplinary action by CEO
florian: One is, Process says that decisions can be appealed,
and if we don't say how, you can raise an FO
… given that there's no such specific wording about
disciplinary action by CEO
… means that such action can be appealed through FO
… That seems to be the impilication of the Process
… Is a Council the right way to deal with such appeals?
… Should we set up something else? Should we say they can't be
appealed?
florian: Mark also raised another question, it's not obvious
that the Process gives CEO power to terminate an organization
(rather than an individual)
… and I would agree that the Process currently doesn't say
anything about that, but maybe should think about that
… and involve the Board about it
<florian> fantasai: spinning up a council for disciplinary
action is probably not the best thing to do
<florian> fantasai: so if we want an appeals process, we should
come up with something else
<florian> fantasai: two options I can think of:
<florian> fantasai: a) appeal to the Board
<florian> fantasai: b) appeal to the AB
cwilso: Given this is Membership...
fantasai: this is individual
<florian> fantasai: probably a question for the AB, but maybe
people here have thoughts
florian: both were raised
cwilso: even for individuals, this is a decision of the CEO
… I think it's more appropriate to appeal to Board
… I agree appealing to Council doesn't feel appropriate
… I'm not sure we can do much here without changing things like
Member agreement?
florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively
includes the Process
… that's the only way to effectively change the Member
agreement, for not-new members
… [missed]
… My read of Process is that currently it is the Council, but
that's not great
… so probably pushing that to the Board or AB is a good idea
… we should ask both
florian: wrt establishing a way to dismiss organizations, in
practice could do it in the Process, but would want to ask
Board input on that
<florian> fantasai: on the question of dismissing an org, it
should be a decision by the board, probably by supermajority,
only revertible by a a supermajority of the board
<florian> fantasai: AB or TAG shouldn't be able to do that
<florian> fantasai: also we have to make sure that termination
of membership in Process terms is synced with termination in
bylaws terms
<florian> fantasai: would be weird to have a disconnect
<florian> fantasai: but this is for the board
florian: I agree, we should probably log an action item to take
the Board part to the Board
<cwilso> +1 Florian
ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the
Board
florian: for individual disciplinary action appeal, take that
question to the AB
ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal
issue to the AB
Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life
member
github: [40]w3c/w3process#784
[40] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/784
florian: Narrow version of issue is, by being a TAG member,
TimBL becomes one of the set of people that need to be
unanimous for the short circuit of the Council to be used
florian: this was not intended, and seems unfortunate that
TimBl is on the critical path of a short circuit
florian: One solution is to make a specific exception there,
and say that TimBL can abstain
florian: Another option is that, while TAG works mostly works
by consensus, they do vote on e.g. chairs. And maybe we don't
need to include TimBL on those? So posibly we could make him a
lifetime guest of the TAG, or other special status
… then not a formal member of the TAG, so not a part of votes
florian: Ideally we'd get TimBL's feedback on it, but just want
to make sure he's not formally tied in in places not intended
… but input welcome
florian: extra piece of info: even in case of Council that
doesn't use short circuit, TimBl has chosen not to participate
… so not being a formal member of the TAG, he would no longer
be invited to Councils; but so far he has chosen to stay away
… I suspect he intends this way and not an accident
… if you refer to the speech he made in Sophia-Antipolis last
spring
… he explicitly reassured everyone that it's OK that we make
decisions without him
… so I think making him a Director-emeritus invited to TAG for
life matches his expectation better
TallTed: I agree it appears he doesn't intend to participate,
but maybe related to the issues that were raised
… would be good to have explicit confirmation of what he
intends
… I'm OK with him going either way
<Dingwei> +1
TallTed: but some concerns due to indeterminate fate of SOLID
WG
… which he's definitely interested in, unclear whether he'll
play his W3C role
florian: I think plh took an action to check with him, but
haven't heard back
fantasai: Got two options, should we draft one (which one) or
draft both, and ask him?
florian: We could draft both, and give him the option in one
shot
fantasai: any other ideas?
florian: A possible third path, keep him as a formal member of
TAG, but to broaden the exception to not just short-circuits,
but not include him in the Councils in general
fantasai: maybe we go for all three then?
<cwilso> +1
ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim
Any Other Business
Meeting closed.
Summary of action items
1. [41]fantasai take org membership termination issue to the
Board
2. [42]florian take individual disciplinary action appeal
issue to the AB
3. [43]florian draft all three options to present to Tim
Summary of resolutions
1. [44]Merge PR761 including bracketed text
2. [45]Merge PR 760
3. [46]Merge PR 787
4. [47]Merge PR 790, allow editors to make editorial tweaks
5. [48]Merge PR788
6. [49]Merge PR 789
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2023 21:58:49 UTC