Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 22 January 2025

Summary of Resolutions:

   - RESOLVED: Draft a PR for #982 requiring Team's agreement on abandoning
     charter refinement
     https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/982

   - RESOLVED: For issue #373, remove sentence starting “As a courtesy”
     https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/373

   - ACTION: plh to ask AC program committee wrt presenting Process changes

Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/22-w3process-minutes.html

And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================

W3C – DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE) 22 January 2025 IRC log.
Attendees

Present
     Ian, nigel, TallTed
Regrets
     -
Chair
     -
Scribe
     Ian, fantasai

Contents

     Pull requests
     Charter refinement
     Issues to Discuss
         Requiring Team to assent to abandoning charter review
     Ambiguous proxy statement
     Process IG
     end
     Summary of action items
     Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes
Pull requests

<plh> Registries

florian: We are fine-tuning the text. Some notes in the discussion.
… I plan to close this unless someone speaks up
… I invite people to express agreement or disagreement

PLH: The proposal is ok by me.

Nigel: I agree

(That was about 
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/972#pullrequestreview-2538706107)

(Florian resolves another proposed change from TallTed)

(Fantasai joins the meeting)

(Discussion of https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/972#discussion_r1908142441 )

(Florian argues that the proposed link would create confusion due to 
references to different types of groups)

Fantasai: Seems fine
… to not include the link

Proposed: Merge the pull request

(No objections)

Florian: I will merge it following the call

<plh> Short-circuit

Florian: My proposal is to reject the pull request

PLH: +1 to closing with no action

Fantasai: +1 to closing with no action
Charter refinement

Ian: I am doing some work on this and socializing with team

Ian: I've been looking more deeply into this topic
… and I've been working on a draft with the Team
… of an alternative
… with the same goals, but slightly different approach
… as well as a corresponding guidebook update
… I'm making progress, will come back with that

fantasai: Seems mysterious

Ian: You've heard some concerns about this text from the staff, so trying to 
think through a way to achieve the original goals with a different expression 
of it
… want to get Team buy-in first
… before bringing the text to the group

florian: The AB is not attempting to say rubber-stamp and say done or reject 
and say no way
… overall AB supports refinements continuing and trying to get to wrap this up 
with the understanding that ongoing discussions with Team
… To my understanding, there were concerns expressed by some members of Team, 
but no consensus
… and on one of the points there were opposing views, specifically
… if the Team rejects to start a charter
… AB addressed this question, and resolved that yes, this is a Team decision 
(and can be objected to)
… Other than this point, AB did not resolve on anything, just supported 
continuing to refine this section
… Discussed starting wide review (including by Team)
… and also experimentation -- but that should involve actual experiments, not 
just waiting to see what happens
… For my part, I would like to continue on refinements, start on Guide article
… and discuss further with Team
… Want to see what Ian comes up with, and see if we will merge them or 
otherwise align

Ian: I'm fine to work on the Guide article, already started
… so maybe hold off

florian: If the problem of the Process is that it's not well-understood, then 
writing the explainer is necessary

plh: When Ian made his proposal to me, I told him the CG won't understand if 
we don't have a guidebook page
… also wrt starting the charter refinement process, I told him that it's 
important for it to be a Team Decision
… I need to go over this with Ian, his proposal still needs refinements

Ian: Florian, I don't think you need a Guide rewrite because there might be 
some convergence that happens

florian: We should meet with the Team again, and at that time we should have a 
Guide that goes with what we have

Ian: We should have these documents when we go through this with the Team

plh: BTW, we updated the framework used by the Guidebook, so should be easier 
to edit the guidebook than previusly!

florian: There was some strong opposition within the Team to stating that it's 
a Team decision to reject the charter. AB doubled down on this point.
… but we have a number of incoming comments
… I suspect that by processing these comments we will get to a good place
… Until Ian has something to present, I think we should continue refining the 
existing proposal

plh: Yes, we should continue on the assumption that we'll move forward on this

florian: Wrt P2025 as a whole, I think we're getting close, but with a few 
more issues resolved and edited, we should ask the AB to start wide review
… get broader input from Team, PSIG, AC, chairs, etc.
… I'm not aware of any pressing issues that we need to address in this cycle

[discussing scheduling the presentation of Ian's proposal]

plh: You're suggesting to start wide review at next CG meeting?

florian: Yes, should ask the AB to do it

plh: That would bring us to mid-February
… so wide review in March. We could talk about Process at AC meeting
… in that case we should reach out to program committee (Which is still 
getting formed) to present at AC meeting
… do we think this is worth attention at AC meeting

florian: Timeline looks right, but I wonder if it would be in the middle of 
voting or not? Sounds a bit early but maybe not?

plh: My guess is it'll be right before AC Review. AC meeting is on April 7th

florian: We also have an AB meeting that week, so maybe AB can decide to kick 
off AC Review at that meeting

plh: Can take into account feedback during AC meeting

ACTION: plh to reach out to program committee wrt presenting Process changes

plh: How long do we need?

fantasai: 10 minutes? Pretty sure we can present in that amount of time.
… Need more if you want Q&A

plh: Should do Q&A
… I'll ask for 15min

florian: Even if we don't get it, it's a useful checkpoint
Issues to Discuss
Requiring Team to assent to abandoning charter review

florian: Issue from Apple. Currently the facilitator can decide to give up 
unilaterally.
… Perhaps they give up too early
… so the proposal is that both the chartering facilitator and the Team need to 
agree to give up
… if the Team thinks effort should continue, then effort shoudl continue
… potentially with a different facilitator

plh: Can't Team decide anyway?

<plh> "A group decision or Team Decision to initiate AC Review of the charter 
draft, subject to Team verification that the expectations of charter 
refinement are fulfilled.'

florian: If we have a charter draft, and the group doesn't want to take it to 
the AC, then Team can decide unilaterally
… but the facilitator can still decide to *give up* unilaterally

plh: Ah

florian: I agree with the feedback, unsure about wording

plh: The Team can pick a different facilitator if the facilitator gives up

florian: If they decide to give up trying personally, sure. But if they decide 
the effort overall should stop...

plh: OK
… though we could restart the effort in any case

florian: Yes, but more messy

florian: One way to say this is that both the facilitator and the Team need to 
decide to give up
… other option is that facilitator proposes and Team confirms

plh: I don't feel strongly

TallTed: Inclined towards Florian's structure: decision by facilitator and 
concurrance by the Team
… appealing the decision, I don't think the intent is to force the facilitator 
who is resigning to continue with it
… so that is not a decision that is subject to objection

florian: Not a question about they can resign. Question is if they decide to 
disband the group.
… Is it two decisions, or a proposal and a decision?

[confusion]

florian: The facilitator isn't just saying taht they can't do it personally, 
but that the task is not worth continuing, let's stop trying.

plh: Can already object to a decision to abandon the proposal
… what's important is that it's a decision and can appeal it

florian: Let's agree on the goal, and then I'll try to make a PR

RESOLUTION: Draft a PR for this issue

github: w3c/process#982
Ambiguous proxy statement

florian: Coralie pointed out an ambiguous phrase [quotes]

github: w3c/process#373

florian: One suggestion from fantasai is to just delete the sentence

[discussion about what this section is about]

fantasai: We have a separate paragraph about proxy votes, apparently, so 
should just delete this sentence

plh: Objections to removing sentence starting "As a courtesy"

RESOLUTION: Remove the sentence starting "As a courtesy".
Process IG

florian: fantasai made a draft describing how we would operate if chartered as 
an IG
… I think she got it mostly right
… There's been some discussion in the AB about having a single group for the 
Process, Code of Conduct, Vision, Patent Policy, etc.
… There was no consensus on that idea.
… To the extent that we do them separately -- and I think we should do them 
separately -- I think the draft is pretty good, just needs some minor tweaks
… I hope the AB will pursue something like this

plh: I provided some comments in GH
… I agree that we don't want to mix up all these topics. Keeping in separate 
groups is good.
… Having said that, we'd be creating these non-technical groups
… and our Process was written mainly for technical groups
… so bypassing some stuff in /Guide for non-technical groups
… e.g. not doing horizontal review

florian: Process calls for "wide review", which is not necessarily "horizontal".
… The set of ppl to review this for "wide review" doesn't need to include the 
HRGs.

plh: True. If we decide Process should be an IG, then PWE should be also
… unsure how the AB sees continuation of the Vision
… there's a cost to chartering IGs, need chairs, charter, etc.
… so a bit worried about that
… I do agree the charter is a good start
… and suggested an idea for mentioning guidebook

<florian> fantasai: if we do this for process, we should also do it for pwe

<plh> fantasai: if we do it for process, we should also do it for PWE

<plh> ... I don't think the cost will be high to do these groups

<florian> fantasai: I don't think the cost is going to be particularly high, 
we already have chairs and team participation

<florian> fantasai: so it's mostly about the chartering cost

<florian> florian: I think I agree with PLH's suggestion about /Guide in the 
charter

fantasai: wrt PSIG, I think we shouldn't touch that. They're their own special 
thing.

plh: AB still needs to continue this conversation. If we do the same the PWE, 
that's not a discussion to have here

fantasai: Yes.

plh: I expect AB to take next steps on this.

florian: Yes. I expect AB to figure out whether it wants one group or several
… at that point, then this CG can propose the charter
… but then go through chartering process and see where it lands

plh: Once you get serious about this, I would like to open a strategy issue so 
we can start tracking the progress on those charters
… so that AC is aware of that conversation

fantasai: Need a decision about whether one group or many

(agree with florian that should be several and not one)

plh: Don't believe Team will oppose starting charter refinement on this

fantasai: Part of my rationale for writing this down
… is that relationship of Process CG and AB is unusual one
… and formally chartering can help clarify and codify that

florian: There's confusion about how we make decisions here even in the AB
… the fact that we work under the direction of the AB

florian: Let's triage issues and meet again later

Meeting closed
end
Summary of action items

     plh to reach out to program committee wrt presenting Process changes

Summary of resolutions

     Draft a PR for this issue
     Remove the sentence starting "As a courtesy".

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 
242 (Fri Dec 20 18:32:17 2024 UTC).
Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/this/this with the Team/

Succeeded: s/oiu/iu

Succeeded: s/can/can still/

Maybe present: Fantasai, florian, PLH

All speakers: Fantasai, florian, Ian, Nigel, PLH, TallTed

Active on IRC: fantasai, florian, Ian, nigel, plh, TallTed

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2025 17:58:59 UTC