Separating the work on AB/TAG disciplinary procedures

Hi AB, TAG, and Process CG,

Given that on the one hand, most of the current Process draft is pretty 
stable and probably ready for wide review, but on the other hand, that 
the set of issues and edits related to removal and recall of the AB or 
TAG continue to be the subject of significant discussion and iteration, 
I have just taken steps to help isolate that discussion from the rest of 
the draft.

Specifically:

* I have backed out from the Editor's draft's main branch all the edits 
related to TAG/AB removal/recall that had already been landed. They no 
longer appear in https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/

* I have created a "ab-tag-discipline" topic branch, whose built preview 
can be seen at 
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/ab-tag-discipline, with those 
commits reinstated. The branch is documented from the repo's README 
<https://github.com/w3c/process#user-content-branches-under-development>, 
so that you can find it later without referring to this mail.

* I have added a "Topic: AB/TAG discipline 
<https://github.com/w3c/process/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22Topic%3A%20AB%2FTAG%20discipline%22%20>" 
label to all Process CG issues and PRs, open or closed, that are about 
this discussion

* I have adjusted the pending PRs on this topic to be targeting the 
"ab-tag-discipline" branch, rather than the main branch

I believe that with this in place, we can both:

* start the wide review of the rest of the Process, without concern that 
people reviewing would be upset or confused by this work-in-progress. I 
would appreciate AB confirmation that we can indeed start.

* continue to iterate on this topic, in an isolated space, where we can 
land incremental improvements into a dedicated draft for easy review, 
while being clear that we're not yet committed to it, and can chose to 
keep iterating, or to give up on it, without affecting the main draft 
until we decide to adopt the whole thing.


I've taken the liberty to do that as Process Editor, because I thought 
this would bring some clarity and peace to the state of our discussions, 
and that it would be easier to do it and tell you about it, rather than 
try to explain what it would look like and ask for permission. If the 
Process CG chairs or the AB think I was wrong to do so, I can easily 
revert things back to where they were.

—Florian