- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 01:30:42 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Summary of Resolutions:
* Close issue 456: W3C Glossary
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/456#issuecomment-2065824197
* Close issue 481: Whistleblower Policy
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/481#issuecomment-2065834813
* Close issue 582 / transfer part to AB: Representing W3C
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/582#issuecomment-2065876479
* Adopt PR 819: Consistency of Maturity Stages wrt placement of "Draft"
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/819
* Accept PR 857 to delete "Streamlined Publication Approval"
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/857
* Merge PR 837 to clarify "each" in TAG appointment ratification
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/837
* Merge PR 841 to disambiguate vote thresholds
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/841/files
* Merge PR 842 to disambiguate vote thresholds
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/841/files
* Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/841/files
* Adopt PR 850: Editorial Rewrite of Charter Approval
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/850/files
Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-w3process-minutes.html
And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================
Contents
Issues to Close
Team updating Notes
W3C Glossary
Whistleblower Policy
Representing the W3C
Pull Requests to Review
Consistency of Maturity Stages wrt placement of "Draft"
Retire "Streamlined Publication Approval"
Disambiguate "each" in TAG appointment ratification
Disambiguate vote thresholds
Editorial Rewrite of Charter Approval
Charter Review Process
End
Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Issues to Close
Team updating Notes
github: w3c/w3process#120 (comment)
florian: Since issue, we made some changes
… Team can do Class 1 edits (markup fixes)
… also can annotate proposed changes
… can't fold in directly, but can say that once a WG is created expect to make
these changes, or whatever
… Issue seems to be addressed; if we want more could open a follow-up later
plh: Team can make Class 2 changes in REC that has no WG
… [quotes Process]
… but for a Note, how do we differentiate editorial vs substantive?
florian: Old definition of the classes of changes didn't help, but we updated that
plh: If we have a definition that works for NOTEs, then we should make REC and
NOTE match
… if can make editorial edits to REC, why not NOTE
… though in practice, Team is unlikely to make any edits on its own to a REC
florian: [quotes spec]
https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#correction-classes
florian: So your proposal is to update ability of Team to match REC
plh: or downgrade to match
plh: so far haven't needed to, unless there's a group behind it
florian: If didn't have ability to mark proposed changes, wouldn't be enough
… but given that, is it not enough?
plh: I can imagine it, but unlikely without a responsible group
… don't think we should give wildcard to Team to make substantive change to notes
… idk how to do in NOTEs
florian: we can do the same as REC amendments in NOTEs
plh: but we can leave substantive changes to another day, not much motivation atm
fantasai: if not closing issue, let's move on, lots of stuff on agenda
W3C Glossary
github: w3c/w3process#456 (comment)
florian: Not great, but it exists and AB can publish as a NOTE
… propose to close the issue, file follow-up against the AB
plh: makes sense to me
… covers only Patent Policy and Process?
florian: It has a few parts, automated pull from Process and Patent Policy
… also two manual sections, one where we link to relevant terms defined elsewhere
… not every term in W3C, but ones that are widely relevant
… and terms that are widely relevant but not defined elsewhere, can add into
glossary
… not good enough yet, but framework is there
plh: agree to close issue
… anyone else?
<fantasai> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue 456
Whistleblower Policy
github: w3c/w3process#481 (comment)
florian: We previously wanted to transfer issue to Board, but they already
adopted a policy so nothing to transfer
… if their policy isn't good enough, should file issue against them
plh: +1
<fantasai> +1
<cpn> +1
RESOLUTION: Close 481
Representing the W3C
florian: Broad issue, we solved the part that fits into Process
… when Membership wants to make a collective statement, we have Statement track
… however issue also concerns with other thing, can the Team make a statement
on behalf of W3C on smaller matters
… in a timely manner
… we haven't addressed this, but not in-scope for Process
… there's an existing policy; probably needs updating, but not in scope for
this group
… so for us, we're done; and the rest is for someone else
plh: agreed
florian: rest should probably be addressed by CEO with advice of AB
… probably too detailed for the Board
plh: but in any case not here
<cpn> +1 to leaving to CEO + AB
<plh> +1
<fantasai> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue / transfer part to AB
Pull Requests to Review
Consistency of Maturity Stages wrt placement of "Draft"
github: w3c/w3process#779 (comment)
florian: We narrowed to 2 options, and took a poll. 8 in favor of adopting, 1
in favor of doing nothing
… ChrisN, do you object to adopting? Preference seems clearly the other way
around.
cpn: Mildly dislike. "Note Draft" reads awkwardly, and I'm OK with the word
being in different places. But won't object.
florian: I think 8-1 and no objection means we do it
plh: unsure what it means for our publication system
florian: We're not changing many of them
… and not adopting just yet
… if it's a major challenge for systeam can reopen
plh: ok, lets agree to adopt, and I'll fyi to webmaster
RESOLUTION: Adopt PR 819
w3c/w3process#819
Retire "Streamlined Publication Approval"
github: w3c/w3process#856
w3c/w3process#857
florian: When we did Process 2020, we tried to make some transition requests
easier because at the time it took a long time
… we introduced a stricter path in the Process, that doesn't require the
Director's decision
… but nobody used this
fantasai: also we streamlined getting manual approval a lot
florian: overall REC track is long and complicated, this chapter doesn't help
much and just confuses people
… suggestion is to delete
<fantasai> +1
<cpn> +1
plh: +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 857 to delete "Streamlined Publication Approval"
Disambiguate "each" in TAG appointment ratification
github: w3c/w3process#836
w3c/w3process#837
florian: Clarified that original intent was AB and TAG separately ratify
… we wanted to clarify in the Process to avoid confusion on that point
… there's also some other questions about TAG appointments, but to answer
narrow question of clarifying this original intent
… this phrasing seems to work, so let's merge it and keep discussing the rest
separately
plh: sgtm
<fantasai> +1
plh: objections?
<cpn> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 837 to clarify "each"
Disambiguate vote thresholds
github: w3c/w3process#838
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/841/files
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files
florian: Process discusses various votes, passing by majority or supermajority
… identified 4 ambiguities
… I landed the first one based on previous call
… 2nd one is about TAG, come back to it later
… 3rd and 4th we agreed on what we mean, and I made 2 PRs to address
… 3rd about Council dismissal, 4th about Council decision votes
<fantasai> +1
plh: objections to 841?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 841
florian: [introduces 842]
plh: objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 842
florian: With these merged, the only thing remaining is about the TAG. I
suggest we spin out into a separate issue and close.
… that conversation is complicated, better in a separate plae
plh: +1
<fantasai> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment
Editorial Rewrite of Charter Approval
github: w3c/w3process#850
florian: As fantasai and I were working on revision of Charter
development/review, we found the existing section to be poorly written
… so this is just to rewrite editorially to make easier to read and follow
/github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files///github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/850/files
plh: There are some changes to active charter that don't require AC review
florian: That's still there, just moved it
… original text mixed these up a lot, so we made subsections
fantasai: This is probably easier to review ith the text side by side rather
than diff view, because we basically rewrote it
[use the gear icon to get split view, instead of unified]
POLL: Approve change?
<fantasai> +1
<plh> +1
<florian_irc> +1
<TallTed> +1
<cpn> +1
<joshco> abstain
RESOLUTION: Adopt PR 850
Charter Review Process
github: w3c/w3process#580
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/851/files
florian: We've been discussing several months
… currently it's informal, but this formalizes it
… creates a formally identified phase (calling "charter refinement" currently)
… to start it, is a Team Decision -- so can object
… and has a Facilitator (Chair) to drive progress
… progress requires wide review, addressing issues, etc.
… and then decision to take to AC Review
… if anyone files an FO prior to AC Review, we group that objection with the
AC Review FOs, so the Council can address everything together
… (this is something we learned from experience)
plh: Looking at "Advance Notice" requirement, a few things not comfortable
… 1st is to identify location of charter draft which must be public
… means we can't do anything if we're thinking about this, but don't have
draft yet
florian: We're using the term 'Advance Notice" for the start of this new
phase. But if we want an earlier notice... we can have two different words
… which one is called 'Advance Review Notes' ... probably it's this one
because can't "review" if nothing to "review"
… but making a notice "we're thinking about a charter, come talk to us" is
also fine
plh: Today we have two phases
… 1. We're working on a charter, should tell AC about it
… 2. We have a draft, and asking ppl to review it
… horizontal review, etc.
… which one is it?
florian: in between. You might not have a completed draft, but you have something
… you could have a mostly blank draft, but probably premature
plh: had an AC meeting session on identity, trying to evaluate whether to look
into it
… sent advance notice about working on a charter
… and some of us spent some time working on a draft
… then went around asking for comments
… hoping to start AC Review in May
florian: I think at the end of these two days, you would have sent the Advance
Review Notice saying "we have a thing, want ppl to work with us to make it ready"
<florian_irc> fantasai: the point of this notice to to provide more structure
<florian_irc> fantasai: if we're in a hazy phase where we don't really need
formal feedback because there's no controversy, or because you don't yet know
what you're doing, it's too early
<florian_irc> fantasai: but if you have put a draft together, or if you're
having trouble putting a draft together because of controversy…
<florian_irc> fantasai: then having this phase with formal helps, thanks to
formal chairing
plh: I like that, but the proposal removes requirement on Team to tell AC that
they're working on a charter
… we often can send draft, but some cases where we know the WG is talking
about a charter and basically send a signal to AC to say, there are
conversations happening over there
… not sure that's a good thing or bad thing
cpn: Another benefit in this earlier review
… when charters get to AC Review, you have a community very invested in the
charter
… if objections from AC, better to bring up earlier
… so in general supportive of any effort to bring concerns earlier
… in addition to other benefits described
cpn: wrt your concerns of Advance Notice, anything stopping from doing both
things?
… you can send an early notification that working on a charter, and another
that it's time for wider review
plh: nothing stopping us other than maybe concern about too many emails to AC
… a little uncomfortable about removing requirement on staff about this early
notification
florian_irc: Not removing requirement on Team to communicate, just shifts timing
… if Team is wondering whether it should try to write a draft, want to ask
feedback, send a notice
… but if you already know, then just start it and announce the draft
… if you anticipate that what you draft will be controversial, make a draft
with lots of "fill in the blank" and send the notice earlier to ask for help
cpn: I think I'd prefer to keep the requirement for earlier advance notice
… even if that means multiple notifications
… uncomfortable about later in the phase only
<florian_irc> fantasai: I don't have a strong feeling either way on the
earlier notice
<florian_irc> fantasai: we can keep that req if people want it
<florian_irc> fantasai: if that's too much traffic, we can set up a separate
mailing list that people can subscribe to
<florian_irc> fantasai: we can also kick that question to the AB or AC
plh: I don't have strong feelings either, want to hear from AC
… if early notice and advance notice coincide because we receive a charter
that's fairly complete, can merge into one
florian_irc: if we go this way, I suggest we amend PR to include both
… that way we can have stable names for them
… and then include a provision that says if they happen at the same time, can
send one mail
plh: corner case, Verifiable Credentials has been discussing their charter
… only change is, reason they do rechartering because can't extend more than 6
months
… and that requires an AC Review
… so nothing much changed, and here in this advance review notice, expected
duration for phase is 28 days
… so basically before 28 days of AC review, force 28 days of pre-review
… most cases it's fine, but some cases where nothing changed in the charter
… corner case, idk if we care enough
florian_irc: 6-month limit, is that good practice or basis in the Process?
plh: might be good practice, maybe W3M committed to AC
… AC didn't like e.g. 2-year extensions
florian_irc: should this be in the Process?
… we could say charter extension is by Team Decision, but longer than six
months requires AC Review
… [missed]
fantasai: How about just if it's under the Team Decision scope of minor
decisions, then Team MAY request AC Review (and then doesn't require the
28-day wide review phase)
florian_irc: could do that, and if later want to forbid Team from e.g. longer
extensions then can request a separate change
fantasai: At Time
florian_irc: ok, I'll make adjustments and we'll come back to it
End
Meeting closed.
Summary of resolutions
Close issue 456
Close 481
Close issue / transfer part to AB
Adopt PR 819
Accept PR 857 to delete "Streamlined Publication Approval"
Merge PR 837 to clarify "each"
Merge PR 841
Merge PR 842
Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment
Adopt PR 850
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version
221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).
Diagnostics
Succeeded: s/github: Consistency of Maturity Stages wrt placement of "Draft"//
Warning: ‘s/-> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files//’ interpreted
as replacing ‘-> https:’ by ‘/github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files/’
Succeeded: s/-> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files//
Succeeded: s|-> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/842/files||
Maybe present: cpn, fantasai, florian, florian_irc, plh, POLL
All speakers: cpn, fantasai, florian, florian_irc, plh, POLL
Active on IRC: cpn, fantasai, florian_irc, joshco, plh, TallTed
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2024 05:30:50 UTC