- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:47:16 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Summary:
* Merge PR #818
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/819
* For issue #770 (position of "Draft" in status names)
we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819 to
put "Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
* Move #820 to AB
https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/212
Full minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2024/03/13-w3process-minutes.html
And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================
W3C – DRAFT –
Process CG Call 13 March 2024 Agenda. IRC log.
Attendees
Present
cwilso, Dingwei, fantasai, florian, Nigel_Megitt, plh, TallTed
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
fantasai
Contents
Pull Requests to Review
Clarify what a registry is made of
Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
Issues to Discuss
Charter review process
Process 2024
New Issues
The minimum time commitment for participation in the elected bodies is
Chair should be required in charter
Summary of action items
Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Pull Requests to Review
Clarify what a registry is made of
github: w3c/w3process#800
w3c/w3process#819
florian: Follow-up from a previous PR
… Nigel had pointed out that there's some confusion about what a registry *is*
… had various "associations" but doesn't say what it consists of
… referencing specifications aren't *part* of the registry
… you still have a registry without such specs, it's just useless
plh: Any other comments/questions on this PR?
RESOLUTION: Merge #818
ACTION: Florian, check with Nigel if the issue can now be closed.
Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
github: Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
-> Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
florian: We have a bunch of statuses that include the word "Draft"
… older ones end in "Draft"
… two new ones have "Draft" at the beginning
… but then prepend "W3C" and it's no longer at beginning or end, which
de-emphasizes it
… I think the only reasonable options are do nothing, or put at the end
… because longstanding statuses like "Working Draft" have it at the end
… Putting at the end makes sure the word "Draft" is noticeable
… unsure if we have consensus
TallTed: Putting Draft at the end means Draft is the most important word in
the label
… putting at the beginning makes it an adjective that modifies noun that follows
… what you want to find is the thing, whether draft or not, but not looking
for all drafts
<plh> https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc
<TallTed> those names leave off implied elements
plh: Do you expect to change pubrules?
fantasai: Yes, that's the point
florian: worst is "Group Draft Note", where the word "draft" is in the middle
and de-emphasized
… we already have a confusion with status of documents published by W3C,
people think they are standard/official even when not
… important to emphasize Draft
… if we decided from scratch maybe we'd put Draft at the front, but we can't
rename everything at this point
<TallTed> several Rec Track (for instance) leave out "Recommendation", e.g.,
"Draft Recommendation", "Discontinued Draft Recommendation"
<plh> fantasai: +1 to this pull request
<plh> ... we need to be consistent
<TallTed> "Working Draft" is the most odd-one-out, as it's a compound noun
cwilso: Naming preference, but have to agree with Ted, if you put Draft at the
beginning it's harder to skip
cwilso: Everything we work with is drafts, makes it clearer this is a status
… but not worth losing sleep over
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond to cwilso
<plh> fantasai: you'll get "W3C Draft ...."
<plh> ... so you won't get the effect that you're looking for
florian: Renaming in Process doc is not hard. Renaming in publications is a
lot of churn
plh: Because the PR only renames Draft note and Draft Registries, we have very
few of those, so won't create a lot of pain in our groups
<TallTed> The inviolable "W3C" prefix is certainly troublesome.
plh: We started with "Working Draft"
… then added "Candidate Recommendation Draft"
… "Snapshot Candidate Recommendation" would sound weird
<TallTed> "Snapshot Draft W3C Candidate Recommendation"
plh: Then we added Draft Note and Draft Registry without thinking much about
consistenci
… I'm OK with the PR, can check with Webmaster about deployment
florian: Overall, I'd be OK with a variety of things, but -1 on rename
everything. Not worth the churn.
<cwilso> "W3C Note Draft" sounds official and endorsed. "Draft W3C Note" much
less so.
plh: Same. It's a lot of work.
TallTed: I won't lie down on the road on it. In some ways it seems like a lot
of thing being churned, so better opportunity than many
<plh> fantasai: we'll introduce a lot of confusion in the community if we do a
general renaming.
TallTed: these two renames seem worth doing to bring in line with the rest
cwilso: I'm not going to lie down on the road on this one. The more I think
about it, W3C note Draft sounds official and endorsed, wherease Draft W3C note
much less so
… I would prefer to leave as outlier and not be consistent, but that's my vote
but not an objection
florian: I think there's maybe 2 strong -1 against changing everything
… so deciding between changing or not doing anything
plh: Difference between note and draft note is up to WG, really
… for Draft Registry, major difference compared to Registry because opposite
ends of registry track
… but for Note, not much different
plh: I'm 0 on this, don't feel strongly about the change
… can flip a coin or ask for more feedback
… I think in the end people will not care much
fantasai: I think we can resolve on 2 options, and not others
florian: We'll resolve on those two and then wait a cycle or two to get feedback
plh: Issue was brought by Shawn, from staff; and Nigel also weighed in
PROPOSED: For Issue 779, we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819 to
put "Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
RESOLUTION: For Issue 779, we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819
to put "Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
github: w3c/w3process#722
florian: I don't think the wording in the PR is quite right
… but I also can't figure out what Josh is *trying* to solve
w3c/w3process#722 (comment)
joshco: Nigel asked the questions that came up to me
… unclear to me what is expected to happen
… are people actually doing this, is it actually happening?
plh: Nigel was asking, what is the issue associated with the PR
… where you trying to address an actual issue?
joshco: It was while I was reviewing the text, I didn't understand what it was
expecting
florian: [quotes text]
… you expanded in order to explain it
… but it's wrong, not supposed to use redaction for confidential information
to make it public, supposed to not make it public
… Team has procedures for changing confidentiality levels
… The sentence is more general, it's making reasonable effort to maintain
confidentiality
… How is context-dependent
… so I think your clarifications aren't correct. Whether we need other
clarifications, I don't know
joshco: The audience of this is not the people who are deciding the
confidentiality level
… this is about readers of the document should respect the confidentality
level of the document
florian: That would be a clarification to the first point
… respecting appropriate level of confidentiality
… second point is about applying proper care
… is that reasonable?
joshco: Yeah
florian: OK I'll try to come up with a PR
Issues to Discuss
Charter review process
plh: What's the status? Any follow-up from the AB?
florian: I feel that the AB didn't so much have a negative to reaction to the
specifics of the proposal, but a reacted to "more rules? that feels like a
lot! we have so much process already do we need all this"
<cwilso> +1
florian: which makes me think I was bad at presenting it, because it doesn't
actually introduce a lot of rules?
… so I think we need to make sure the proposal is expressed in a brief way
… I don't think it's a lot
… but it requires better phrasing, and I haven't done that yet
… Maybe once it's phrased in a way that is simpler people will like it, maybe not
cwilso: Agree with Florian's assessment
… also negative reaction to adding more process, but also agree it wasn't
actually very much more process
… just making sure that it's clarified how things plug in
… I think we should keep this on the plate, I think it's a good idea
… need to figure out how to make it more acceptable
plh: With my Team hat, I came out of this session as "we have a communication
problem"
… that should be my first priority
… not that we don't need changes to Process
… but communication issue is more urgent
… best next step would be PR against Process, to make it clear that it's not
complicated
florian: Agree. Need to make a first draft which will be too long, and then
simplify. :)
<cwilso> +1
[some discussion about problems that we run into during chartering; Florian
and plh both agree this would reduce such problems ]
Process 2024
plh: AC meeting April 8-9
… ideally we present our proposed major changes to the AC at this time
… but we don't really have any such changes atm, just minor fixes
… I believe the ongoing discussion around resolving FOs and issue 580 will
take several months
… I don't expect us to have anything concrete before TPAC
florian: Agree, and given experience with AB, we need to be able to explain
very crisply.
… If we're not ready to do that, it's not going to be a useful discussion.
plh: We have to decide when to ship Process 2024
… do we prepare a Process for the summer?
… and iterate over the rest?
florian: My preference would be to extend by ~ 6 month so we present at TPAC
rather than AC
… and ratify after TPAC
… Might end up early 2025
… last few years we had big changes that were needed, and needed to release
earlier
… I think better to reduce number of cycles
plh: I'm ok with that. Good chance we can make good progress on this one
issue, TimBL's participation in Council
florian: Also a few adjustments to Council based on current Councils
plh: 580 is longer term, I'd be surprised if we're ready by TPAC
fantasai: We might be able to get it ready by TPAC, if Florian and I can draft
up in April and we can refine through spring/summer
plh: Change wrt abstaining on TAG/AB decisions is maybe urgent?
florian: It's a good rule, but not urgent. Only affects votes, not decisions
by consensus.
… and so far we've only had decisions by consensus in the Councils
plh: Council dismissal votes being public?
florian: Haven't had a chance yet
plh: OK, so let's defer decision to ship new Process until TPAC
New Issues
The minimum time commitment for participation in the elected bodies is
github: w3c/w3process#820
plh: My problem with such expectations is enforcing them.
… e.g. we used to have Good Standing rules, and the groups didn't enforce them
anyway so we removed them
… so unless groups are willing to enforce, unnecessary to put rules
florian: Intent wasn't to have rules, but to have "authoritative guidance"
about reasonable expectations
plh: Key word is "Guidance", that's not a change for Process
… need to figure out where to put guidance
cwilso: I don't think Process need to lay out something informance
… but we need guidance that gets taken seriously
… and that needs to be sent along with the Team's call for nominations
… it should lay out expectations for people who sign up
plh: Would be helpful if TAG would provide a job description
florian: including the workload
plh: Helpful for candidates to evaluate whether they want to run or not
cwilso: that's what Tess was saying: the TAG charter used to do that,
described the job of TAG
… so now that we don't have TAG charter, we need to put that somewhere else
… though agree it wouldn't go in the Process
cwilso: Maybe move this issue to AB since not Process
nigel: Talking about expectations and job descriptions, dancing around fact
that these positions are self-funded
… there's diversity implications there as well
plh: no objection to move to AB
florian: in favor
… AB documents in a wiki page, and might not be official enough; maybe /Guide
is better
… but can hash that out in AB
<cwilso> I don't disagree with Nigel, and note
https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/1. (yes, issue #1!)
fantasai: so proposed resolution to move to AB?
florian: define somewhere, but not Process
plh: and AB can talk to TAG about job description
RESOLUTION: Move #820 to AB
Chair should be required in charter
github: w3c/w3process#823
plh: I'm open to to this additional requirement
… for Team Contacts, I would have a different position, but for chairs makes
sense to me
nigel: I mentioned on the issue, I think what's important is we have alignment
on who gets to choose and what we require
… if it's not an AC option because Team has authority, then doesn't make sense
to put it in
cwilso: Sure, but you can formally object to any Team Decision--including
chair choice
… so you can FO a chair, and easiest to do this all at once
… it is still a Team choice, but it would be easiest--and I would have the
highest confidence that has chairs listed for a new group
… it would be best to align that
plh: +1 to cwilso
… if we have an FO against a particular individual that gets tricky
… haven't had that case so far
… recent charter with lots of feedback on proposed chairs
plh: Team should also update /Guide wrt picking chairs
nigel: I think at this stage, I think we should remove chairs from charter reviews
… deciding whether work should go ahead
… separate explicit communication from Team wrt chairs
… then really clear what the decision is
… so separate, but parallel
plh: At time, and I think we won't have time to solve today
florian: We also have had problem that we put someone as chair in the charter,
but they didn't become the chair because their company didn't join the group
plh: ok I'll add to agenda for next call
… see you all next time
Meeting closed.
Summary of action items
Florian, check with Nigel if the issue can now be closed.
Summary of resolutions
Merge #818
For Issue 779, we will *either* make no change *or* adopt PR #819 to put
"Draft" at the end for Note and Registry tracks.
Move #820 to AB
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version
221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).
Diagnostics
Succeeded: s/vie/view/
Succeeded: s/against changing anything/against changing everything
Succeeded: s/-> Confidentiality Levels and Redactions//
Succeeded: s/github: Confidentiality Levels and Redactions//
No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: fantasai
Maybe present: joshco, nigel
All speakers: cwilso, fantasai, florian, joshco, nigel, plh, TallTed
Active on IRC: cwilso, fantasai, florian, nigel, plh, TallTed
On 3/12/24 09:01, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> Dial-in:
> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/74b08985-d615-46d4-a52c-da0071b133c1/20240313T070000/
> This meeting is at 7am Los Angeles / 1400 UTC, Wednesday 13 March 2024.
>
> Previous minutes:
> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-w3process-minutes.html
>
> === Pull Requests to Review ===
>
> Clarify what a registry is made of
> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/800
> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/818
>
> Improve consistency of document status names that use the word "Draft"
> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/779
> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/819
>
> Confidentiality Levels and Redactions
> PR: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/722
>
> === Issues to Discuss ===
>
> Charter review process: pre-AC review period
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/580
>
> Any follow-up from AB face-to-face meeting ?
>
> === Process 2024 ====
>
> W3C Advisory Committee meeting is on April 8-9.
>
> Do we have anything else **major** for Process 2024 to add to our
> current list of changes?
>
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#changes-2024
>
> === New Issues ===
>
> The minimum time commitment for participation in the elected bodies is
> undefined
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/820
>
> Chair should be required in charter
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/823
>
> Determining AC Consensus of Post-Review Changes
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/825
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2024 15:47:23 UTC