[correction] Minutes: W3C Process CG 8 November 2023

pressed send too fast. Subject line corrected.


On 11/8/2023 11:31 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> 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 16:31:54 UTC