Re: Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 27 August 2025

For the record, I would like to note that I had sent regrets[1], even 
though the minutes claim otherwise.

—Florian

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Aug/0004.html

On 2025/08/27 17:22, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Summary of Resolutions:
>
> * Mark the following process issues as “Proposed to close”: 921, 928
>     https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/921
>     https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/928
>
> * Close issue 521 after the AB-public repo issue has been created and the notes from this meeting appear in the process repo
>    https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/521
>
> * Remove “proposed to close” label from 639
>    https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/639
>
> Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/27-w3process-minutes.html
> And also pasted below for search...
> =======================================================================
>
> Revising W3C Process Community Group
> 27 August 2025
>
> [2]IRC log.
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2025/08/27-w3process-irc
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Alan Law, Brent Zundel (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
> Philippe Le Hégaret, Ted Tibodeau, François Daoust
>
> Regrets
> -
>
> Chair
> -
>
> Scribe
> Ian
>
> Contents
>
> 1. [3]Welcome
> 2. [4]Plan for TPAC
> 3. [5]Open Process PRS
> 1. [6]w3c/process#888
> 4. [7]Process Issue Triage
> 5. [8]Editor role
> 6. [9]Summary of action items
> 7. [10]Summary of resolutions
>
> Meeting minutes
>
> Welcome
>
> Brent: Welcome all!
>
> Brent: Today we'll look at [11]open pull requests. We'll begin
> look at triaging open issues. Let's do some introductions. I
> was recently elected to the AB and will be chairing this group.
> … I appreciate the W3C process and look forward to shepherding
> it in this new role
>
> [11] https://github.com/w3c/process/pulls
>
> PLH: I am responsible for tech strategy at W3C. I have a
> love/hate relationship with the process.
> … I'll be co-chairing this group with Brent
>
> TallTed: I have been doing w3c things since 2001. I am
> particularly interested in the use of language.
>
> Alan: I'm a business owner in the UK; I am interested in how
> the Web and W3C work; I am new to this.
> … I see lots of problems with the Internet of today and would
> like to see if I can help out.
> … and hope to meet the people who get the work done.
>
> <plh> Ian: I first started to work on the process document 28
> yeasr ago. I'm running the community group program.
>
> <plh> ... which has its own process
>
> <plh> ... I think our working group process should be
> overalled, to be healthy. it's challenging for new comers. New
> CG process is 7 pages.
>
> Brent: In the AB I have heard the same sentiment in
> reformulating the process to simplify.
>
> tidoust: Have been at W3C for 17 years. I have developed tools
> to help groups get work done.
> … I am the new W3C Process/Project director at W3C
> … I'll start by learning and observing
>
> Plan for TPAC
>
> Brent: We're not planning to meet as a CG at TPAC
> … however, the AB is planning to attend lots of WG meetings
> during the week to ask questions about process experiences and
> frustrations.
> … I anticipate the results of that outreach will be shared
> here.
>
> Ian: When will the AB reach out?
>
> Brent: We are discussing that at our meeting tomorrow.
>
> Ian: Some suggestions for outreach during TPAC: (1) Chairs
> breakfast (2) Breakout session.
>
> Brent: Good ideas
>
> PLH: I think I'm responsible for organizing the chairs
> breakfast.
>
> Brent: I'll coordinate with Philippe about what to discuss
> during the chairs breakfast
>
> ACTION: PLH to ask Alex to add the Chairs breakfast to the TPAC
> meeting calendar
>
> Open Process PRS
>
> Brent: Say "merge", "continue", or "close"
>
> [12]w3c/process#888
>
> [12] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/888
>
> <brent> Github: [13]w3c/process#888
>
> [13] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/888
>
> PLH: We have a "Needs AB feedback" label
>
> [We review the background of the pull request]
>
> Brent: I'm hearing it's not ready to merge; we need more AB and
> TAG feedback.
>
> <brent> Github: [14]w3c/process#929
>
> [14] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/929
>
> Brent: My observation is that there's not yet consensus to
> address the topic through this pull request.
> … see issue 921 [15]w3c/process#921
>
> [15] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/921
>
> [16]w3c/process#921
>
> [16] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/921
>
> Brent: On that issue I'm not seeing discussion arrive at a
> point where people are clearly saying "here's what we should
> do."
>
> PLH: I think this PR is wrong on several grounds. Of the AC
> wants to nominate someone on the Team to be on the AC, they
> should be able to do so, and if the AC as a whole wants them
> in, they should be able to elect them.
> … a second question is whether the Team should be able to
> nominate someone from the Team, but those nominations are also
> subject to approval outside the team.
> … so I don't think we need to constrain these choices.
> … also, this has not been a problem ever. We have more
> important things to fix in the process.
>
> Ian: +1 to addressing the question of balance of power in a
> process overhaul. Don't need to address it at this time.
>
> Brent: In light of discussion today, I would like to put
> "Propose to close" and see who argues against this.
> … this conversation will be added to the PR.
>
> RESOLUTION: Mark this as proposed to close
>
> <brent> Github: [17]w3c/process#928
>
> [17] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/928
>
> Brent: This proposal limits people from participating in
> different governance bodies at the same time.
>
> PLH: As a reminder, this situation has arisen a couple of
> times.
>
> Brent: This also fits into the broader question of how powers
> and responsibilities are balanced
>
> Ian: There's active opposition to this pull request.
>
> Brent: I also think "Propose to close" is appropriate and
> conversation should move back to the AB
>
> Ian: I am hearing that there is support for addressing the
> concerns that were raised, but in a holistic fashion and that
> may lead to other pull requests.
>
> Brent: Right, the conversation needs to continue and this PR is
> not the place for it to continue
>
> RESOLUTION: Mark this as proposed to close
>
> Process Issue Triage
>
> <brent> Github: [18]w3c/process#521
>
> [18] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/521
>
> Brent: The AB would like to know the experiment results, but I
> don't think that issue needs to be tracked in this issue.
>
> IJ: Closing it here seems fine; with a pointer to wherever it
> will be tracked
>
> Brent: We have the AB public issue tracker.
>
> ACTION: Brent to open an issue in the AB-public repo for the
> transfer of the approval voting issue out of the process repo
>
> RESOLUTION: Close issue 521 after the AB-public repo issue has
> been created and the notes from this meeting appear in the
> process repo
>
> <brent> Github: [19]w3c/process#639
>
> [19] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/639
>
> Ian: I think the AB should review this whole mechanism before
> addressing an issue that is an abstract question.
>
> Brent: That's a good question, but the issue is saying "Since
> they do exist...let's examine this topic"
>
> PLH: We ended up simplifying the submission process. It's hard
> to remember the rationale for the appeal
> … I'd be in favor of allowing others from the AC to appeal
>
> Brent: I am hearing that we should not close this issue.
>
> RESOLUTION: Remove the "propose to close" issue
>
> <brent> Github: [20]w3c/process#402
>
> [20] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/402
>
> PLH: It seems broken to me that the only way to know whether a
> CR is going to Rec or not, you likely have to look at the group
> charter.
>
> Brent: I am hearing there might be some changes to the process
> to help clarify the end state.
>
> Ian: How big a part of the AB conversation is the "maturity
> level communication" topic?
>
> Brent: Too soon to tell.
>
> Ian: Suggest going big here and talking to other orgs and
> entities (e.g., [21]WHATWG, [22]ECMA TC39, [23]Federated
> Identity CG/WG) to see what they are doing, and if possible,
> align with them, which would benefit the whole community.
>
> [21] https://whatwg.org/stages
> [22] https://tc39.es/process-document/
> [23] https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md
>
> Brent: I think that's how the AB is thinking.
>
> Editor role
>
> Brent: I will try to get more people from the AB to this CG,
> and we'll need a new co-editor in light of Elika's moving on.
> … Florian will remain a co-editor
>
> Summary of action items
>
> 1. [24]PLH to ask Alex to add the Chairs breakfast to the TPAC
> meeting calendar
> 2. [25]Brent to open an issue in the AB-public repo for the
> transfer of the approval voting issue out of the process
> repo
>
> Summary of resolutions
>
> 1. [26]Mark this as proposed to close
> 2. [27]Mark this as proposed to close
> 3. [28]Close issue 521 after the AB-public repo issue has been
> created and the notes from this meeting appear in the
> process repo
> 4. [29]Remove the "propose to close" issue
>
>
> Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
> [30]scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).
>
> [30] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel: +1 917 450 8783
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2025 02:10:16 UTC