Minutes: W3C Process CG 11 October 2023

Available at:
   https://www.w3.org/2023/11/08-w3process-minutes.html

                                Process CG

08 November 2023

    [2]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2023/11/08-w3process-irc

Attendees

    Present
           DingWei, Dingwei__, fantasai, florian, joshco, plh,
           TallTed

    Regrets
           Chris

    Chair
           plh

    Scribe
           joshco

Contents

     1. [3]PRs to Discuss
     2. [4]Issues to Discuss
          1. [5]#574
          2. [6]#794
          3. [7]#797
          4. [8]#735
     3. [9]Next meeting
     4. [10]Summary of action items
     5. [11]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

    [12]agenda

      [12] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2023Nov/0003.html

    [13]How best to indicate a Registry section in a Rec track
    document?

      [13] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2023OctDec/0003.html

   PRs to Discuss

    Github: [14]w3c/w3process#790

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790

    florian: there are alternatives that I'd like feedback on

    [15]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files

    [line 4650]

    TallTed: any registry need to have multiples tables and may
    have multiple custodian

    TallTed: see [16]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/
    files#r1369253152

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files#r1369253152

    TallTed: I can live with either proposal

    florian: both phrasing works
    … I does make sense

    <joshco> discussing comment [17]https://github.com/w3c/
    w3process/pull/790/files#r1369253152

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/790/files#r1369253152

    fantasai: how about "f the custodian of a registry table ..."

    TallTed: it's viable but once it's discovered that any table
    have a custodian, it makes sense to address all at once

    fantasai: let's take the shorter wording

    TallTed: if it's meant to address each table at a time, you'll
    have to this process for each table

    [some back-n-forth on wording]

    <joshco> tallted: we should either cover the unusual, corner
    case or not

    <joshco> plh: would doing a survey to replace custodians for a
    given table, would this be an appropriate use of process. yes.

    <joshco> florian: suggests simpler wording

    Ted: I'm fine with "If the [=custodian=] of a [=registry
    table=]"

    [and we'll take the rest of Ted suggestion]

    [and remove the the words after unresponsive on the last line]

    RESOLUTION: merge #790 after making the tweaks

   Issues to Discuss

     #574

    <joshco> Github: [18]w3c/w3process#574

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/574

    <joshco> plh: where are we? are we ready for a pull request?

    Florian: PSIG and AB are fine with not defining order of
    precedence

    fantasai: let's close the issue with noaction and re-open if we
    get new information

    <joshco> fantasai: suggest closing the issue and see what comes

    RESOLUTION: close issue #574 and related pending PRs with no
    change

    <joshco> Github: [19]w3c/w3process#794

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/794

    ACTION: florian to review PR 572 to see if there is any
    editorial bit to salvage before closing

     #794

    florian: TAG had a charter and we agreed to supercede it. the
    Process still refers to it and we should remove those.
    … if something else needs to happen, file a separate

    <TallTed> +1 editorial

    RESOLUTION: the editor will deal with #794 and solve it on
    their own.

     #797

    Github: [20]w3c/w3process#797

      [20] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/797

    fantasai: 2 issues: first, do we need AC review to close a
    group early. second, what do we need to close the group out of
    charter?

    florian: in my view, trying to close a group early isn't a good
    idea
    … we need maintenance
    … having a group sitting around isn't harmful

    <joshco> florian: we dont need to add reason "group is done" to
    the process

    <TallTed> "charter expired" differs from "the group is done";
    "the group is done" is "they've produced their documents"

    <joshco> ... charter expiration means a group close

    <joshco> plh: right now, if the charter has expired, there is
    no reason for an ac review decision. if it has not expired and
    the reason for seeking closure is lack of resources, then there
    is a need for review/decision

    RESOLUTION: Case 2 (closure after charter expired) is a
    discussion related to chartering and needs to be addressed as
    part of that discussion

    plh: Case 1: closure before the charter expires. do we need an
    AC review?

    florian: for PAG outcome, we ought to because the Patent Policy
    itself also calls for one, and I don't think we should change
    that

    fantasai: and for the others as well
    … we may get good feedback

    <joshco> plh: when closing a group with an unexpired charter,
    the ac review can serve as a trigger to cause
    objection/agreement

    plh: I wouldn't wait for a 5% threshold to get reached to close
    a group

    fantasai: that's an issue for the team to decide

    RESOLUTION: case 1 (closure when the charter is not expired)
    still needs AC review

     #735

    plh: 2 extremes: once the AC review is closed, we need to
    publish the FO. OR once the Council publishes its report

    florian: somewhere in between

    fantasai: you don't need to publish right away, but don't wait

    <joshco> Github: [21]w3c/w3process#735

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/735

    <joshco> 1 min left

    Florian: I agree with Jeffrey that there is a problem, but not
    sure how to fix

    fantasai: we need to draft specific wording "soon after the
    close of AC review" or something like that.
    … having it in the process sets the proper expectation

    [we need editors to propose a pull request]

   Next meeting

    plh: November 22

Summary of action items

     1. [22]florian to review PR 572 to see if there is any
        editorial bit to salvage before closing

Summary of resolutions

     1. [23]merge #790 after making the tweaks
     2. [24]close issue #574 and related pending PRs with no change
     3. [25]the editor will deal with #794 and solve it on their
        own.
     4. [26]Case 2 (closure after charter expired) is a discussion
        related to chartering and needs to be addressed as part of
        that discussion
     5. [27]case 1 (closure when the charter is not expired) still
        needs AC review


     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     [28]scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).

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

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2023 16:31:07 UTC