Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 22 May 2024

Summary of Resolutions:

* The Process CG adopted the following pull requests:
    Require listing chair(s) in charters
       https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/874/files
    Add note reminding that the first stage of REC track is WD
       https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/877/files
    Rephrase what CRDs are for
       https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/873/files
    Consolidate similar parts of REC revision
       https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/878/files

Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/22-w3process-minutes

And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================
                       W3C Process Community Group

22 May 2024

    [2]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2024/05/22-w3process-irc

Attendees

    Present
           chris, fantasai, florian, plh

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           plh

    Scribe
           fantasai, plh

Contents

     1. [3]Pull Requests
          1. [4]#874
          2. [5]#875
     2. [6]#873
     3. [7]#877
     4. [8]#873
     5. [9]#878
     6. [10]#876
     7. [11]Summary of action items
     8. [12]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Pull Requests

     #874

    [13]Require listing chair(s) in charters

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/874/files

    Github: [14]https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/874/files

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/874/files

    Github: [15]w3c/w3process#823

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/823

    plh: any objection

    RESOLUTION: Let's mergeg #874

     #875

    Github: [16]w3c/w3process#615

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/615

    [17]Remove note about AC consensus assessment

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/875/files

    Florian: outside of AV review, we don't have a process
    … so having a note saying that the CEO does it seems
    confusing/unecessary

    plh: I'd like to get feedback from Seth

    ACTION: plh to check with the CEO

    Florian: can we agree to do this unless Seth says anything?

    plh: sure

    RESOLUTION: unless we receive a comment from the CEO, this will
    get merged

   #873

   #877

    Github: [18]w3c/w3process#864

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/864

    [19]Add note reminding that the first stage of REC track is WD

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/877/files

    Florian: the REC track a few maturity levels, that's WD, CR,
    PR, REC
    … FPWD is not a maturity level
    … so, you go from Note->WD, not WD->FPWD
    … I looked at the Patent Policy and Process, I believe this is
    what was meant
    … so this is a clarification
    … this case shouldn't arise most of the time. In the past, we
    turned REC-track to Note, because we did not have discontinued
    draft
    … the recent case was Ruby

    plh: should we consult PSIG for that?
    … since FPWD has a call for exclusion

    florian: while the document is a Note, it's ok. Once it's a WD,
    you get committed once you join
    … if you republish a FPWD, then what happened to the previous
    commitment? It's a new document.

    plh: I'd feel more comfortable if we were asking for PSIG
    confirmation

    Florian: the patent policy doesn't care if it's outside the
    REC-track. Once it's back on the REC track
    … if you make normative changes to a Note, that could be a
    problem but the patent policy doesn't address that

    fantasai: I think this is the correct thing to do. If you join
    the Group when it's a Note, you might not realize that you will
    have an opportunity later

    plh: joining a WG with documents in Note state (or editor's
    draft state) doesn't create an exclusion opportunity

    Florian: it's not obvious how things work around rechartering

    plh: I'm fine with making the change and notifying PSIG

    <cwilso> +1

    RESOLUTION: Let's merge #877 and notify PSIG

    ACTION: fantasai to notify PSIG

   #873

    Github: [20]w3c/w3process#450

      [20] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/450

    Florian: it seems it's possible to move from CRD to PR if you
    don't make substantive changes. but the definition of CRD
    claims that it was only to prepare a CRS
    … the PR makes things clearer

    Plh: +1

    RESOLUTION: Let's merge #873

   #878

    Florian: let's at both #878 and #865

    Florian: we have classes of changes
    … the pull requests harmonize how revising a recommendation
    work with those classes.
    … I prefer 878

    plh: the Note talks about "This prohibition" but the previous
    paragraph doesn't mention a probihition

    Florian: we could rephrase with "This restriction"....

    plh: that's fine by me

    RESOLUTION: merge #878 after additional editorial tweaks for
    the Note

    <fantasai> +1 to merging and tweaking the note somehow

   #876

    Github: [21]w3c/w3process#876

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/876

    Florian: there is an article in the Guide about Workshops. We
    have a section about workshop and symposia and doesn't contain
    much rules
    … that section only has one requirement: how far ahead it is
    announced
    … I suggest to move the rule into the meeting section, as well
    as workshop definition
    … and move the rest into the /Guide
    … we have rules about recorded meetings unless people disagree,
    which will apply to workshop as well
    … currently the rule is 8-weeks advance notice

    plh: I agree and disagree. I agree in principle, but disagree
    because more work for me in /Guide

    plh: regarding advance notice, could bypass process by calling
    it something other than "Workshop"

    florian: This PR fixes that loophole, because doesn't say for
    workshops, but says for open events such as workshops.
    … open-ended meetings should have enough notice to attend
    … could make the edits without generalization, but thought it
    would be a good idea.

    plh: I think need more feedback for this, run it by the Team.

    florian: Agree, let's be sure about what we're doing

    fantasai: I think we need an escape hatch
    … a casual/local meeting for example
    … like a WG organizing a dev meetup on the side
    … the pull request is too strict

    florian: should we restrict it to workshop? include an
    exception mechanism?

    plh: restrict it to workshop

    florian: what about symposia?

    plh: we haven't had one for the past 20 years at least....

    florian: [missed]
    … but for something like a developer meetup, at most it informs
    a specific WG, doesn't direct W3C itself
    … that's why I think restriction on Workshop is important, it
    can impact direction of W3C so need enough notice for Members
    to be there
    … but for things that are informative, it matters less
    … nowadays also we have a lot of recordings, so if you're not
    there you can see it afterwards

    florian: OK, I'll modify PR to make the advance meeting notice
    apply only to Workshops

    plh: sounds good to me

    fantasai: let's come back to this with a new PR

    Florian: I'll update the PR

Summary of action items

     1. [22]plh to check with the CEO
     2. [23]fantasai to notify PSIG

Summary of resolutions

     1. [24]Let's mergeg #874
     2. [25]unless we receive a comment from the CEO, this will get
        merged
     3. [26]Let's merge #877 and notify PSIG
     4. [27]Let's merge #873
     5. [28]merge #878 after additional editorial tweaks for the
        Note

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2024 20:15:32 UTC