Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 26 February 2025

Summary of Resolutions:

   - RESOLVED: Merge PR #990 updating mission statement;
     editors are welcome to sync future changes based on W3C website
     https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/990
     https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/989

   - RESOLVED: Merge PR #993 improving Charter Refinement prose
     https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/993

   - RESOLVED: Merge PR #991 using Appeal Vote instead of Council
     for objections to Team rejection of charter refinement
     https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/991

   - RESOLVED: Merge PR #992 enable objections to abandoning
     Charter Refinement
     https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/992

   - Process CG aiming for AC Review before end of June.

Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-w3process-minutes.html

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



W3C – DRAFT –
W3C Process CG Call 26 February 2025 IRC log.
Attendees

Present
     cwilso, plh, TallTed
Regrets
     -
Chair
     -
Scribe
     scribeAssistant

Contents

     Update W3C mission
     Ian's proposal on charter refinement
         Editorial Improvements to Charter Refinement
         Appeal vote as escalation for rejecting charter refinement
         Enable resuming charter refinement after decision to abandon
     Timelines
     Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

plh: Ian put together an alternative proposal. Florian, Elika, Ian, and I had 
a chat about it.
… Florian opened several pull requests against the Process to bring the CG 
draft closer to Ian's proposal.
… some questions about what we want to do by when
… AC meeting coming up in April, AB meeting right after

<Ian> Ian proposal
Update W3C mission

github: w3c/AB-public#220

<plh> plh: that's at the top of the document.

github: w3c/process#989

RESOLUTION: Merge #990 and editors are welcome to future changes based on the 
W3C website mission statement
Ian's proposal on charter refinement

<plh> Ian: developed after concerns raised by the Team

<plh> ... tried to understand the goals of the CG had been and try to achieve 
them with a different approach

<plh> ... addressing ambiguity on whether the Team can or cannot start charter 
refinement.

<plh> ... my approach is more square

<plh> ... so it's more straightforward

<plh> ... it resolves some of the concerns from the Team

<plh> ... the real question was how to object to the team when it decided not 
to do things

<plh> ... proposal is more lightweight to handle those cases

<plh> ... 5 Members is an easier threshold

<plh> ... in the case of AC review, the bar is higher

<plh> ... other aspects of the intention: drive consensus

<plh> ... drive Member engagement

<plh> ... solicit viewpoints

<plh> ... it's now stated clearly that the Team must seek consensus and must 
formally address comments

<plh> ... it's a stronger requirement but I'm happy to make this as a middle 
ground

<plh> ... in any case, we need to put more things in the Guidebook

<plh> ... so the proposal comes along with a Guidebook update

<plh> ... that will create efficient and stability

plh: There's a difference in emphasis between the two proposals.
… in CG proposal, emphasis is on the community effort on the chartering process
… in Ian's proposal, emphasis is on the Team
… There was a lot of pushback from Team about losing that emphasis.

plh: The other major question was about how decisions get made
… for group decisions, need to know the group, and the current definition is 
quite vague
… so this was seen as a problem.

plh: These are the two main differences between the proposals.

florian: One more editorial difference: the CG draft is chronologically 
ordered, whereas Ian's draft describes the core of the phase first and then 
how you start it.

florian: Wrt how much time do we have to resolve this, I would like to add 
another time constraint which is more important.
… I would like the AC Review of this to start before the next AB election.
… Because it would be problematic if we need to re-start this discussion with 
a new AB.

<Ian> (Start of next election is 1 May)

florian: So want to finish this round of Process changes before the end of the 
term.
… In other words, before end of June.
… In terms of how we get there, I think this group will not be able to decide 
between two approaches, and kick some decisions up to AB.

<plh> [6 seats terms are ending on 30 June 2025)

florian: We could share it as-is right now, but there's a lot of differences 
that are incidental.
… Other thing we could do is look at all the things we can bring in line with 
Ian's proposal.
… Meanwhile apply a Process editor's eye to Ian's proposal and see what to 
adjust there.
… In other words bring the two together, and then comparing them will be easier.
… I put together 3 small proposals to start aligning CG draft with some 
aspects of Ian's proposal.

<plh> anon: taking this as-is to the AB isn't going to be useful for the AB

<plh> ... we need to outline the concrete differences

<plh> ... and bring concrete questions to the AB

<plh> ... we could work on the alignment within the CG

cwilso: Completely agree. We should align as much as possible, and whatever we 
take to AB, we need to distill down into "what's the big picture question here"
… Even I'm having trouble here, and I'm relatively conversant with the Process 
compared to most of the AB..

TallTed: I echo cwilso and fantasai. When asking anyone to decide between X & 
Y, it's better to reduce unnecessary differences so it's clear what we're 
deciding between.

florian: In addition to substantive questions, there's matter of framing.
… I think we can work at reducing the difference, but not to zero. Some 
differences are intentional. But maybe easier to talk about once we have 
reduced it.

plh: Sounds like we're all on board with reducing the differences.
… Is it worth our time to go through the PRs from Florian?

florian: Maybe? There are 2 different kinds of PRs. One is purely editorial.
… #993 is re-using phrasing from Ian's draft that could be easily re-used.
… The other two are not editorial, they are relating to a different, more 
efficient way of Members being unhappy with Team's decisions.
… When Team says "no" to starting Charter Refinement, or starting AC Review.

anon: I think we should merge the editorial one, and discuss the two 
substantive ones and send with recommendation to the AB.
Editorial Improvements to Charter Refinement

github: w3c/process#993

Ian: Had a chance to review, no objection in principle, haven't re-reviewed 
the whole thing.

TallTed: Reviewed yesterday, no objections.

RESOLUTION: Merging #993.
Appeal vote as escalation for rejecting charter refinement

github: w3c/process#991

florian: Case of AC Rep has asked for Charter Refinement, and Team said "no".
… And there's a formal objection.
… This kicks off Council process, which is expensive.
… Ian's proposal is that if 5 people formally object, then we kick off Charter 
Refinement
… We didn't want only 1 person to be able to derail the Team.
… But if enough people do insist, we start Charter Refinement, and don't need 
a Council.
… In Ian's text, it was 3 weeks for reaching 5 members or more.
… I left as an open question. Doesn't seem urgent whether 3 or 7 or 12 weeks.
… But would be a problem if 7 years later.
… So as long as countable in weeks, not a rush. But wouldn't want it to be years.
… But that's the idea of this PR.

plh: [proposes an example to think about]

Ian: Mistake in the explanation: need 5 FOs, but then that kicks off an AC Appeal.

florian: Right! That's correct.

florian: Sorry for the confusion.

Ian: Question is who do we appeal to when there's opposition to the Team Decision.
… In some cases we go to Council, but in this case it's faster to go directly 
to Membership.

plh: Then we need 5% ...

anon: No, we just skip straight to the AC vote.

florian: There's a term that wasn't DFNed, so we DFNed it and skip right to 
the vote.

Ian: I much prefer this to my proposal.

plh: Are we happy with this PR? If yes, do we need to circulate with AB?

<TallTed> +1 ask for forgiveness, not permission

plh: Proposal is to Merge 991, and then fantasai and cwilso can bring to AB 
for their consideration. Objections?

RESOLUTION: Merge #991
Enable resuming charter refinement after decision to abandon

github: w3c/process#992

Ian: If Team decides after Charter Refinement not to start AC review, they 
need to announce, and if 5 members object we start AC Review.

florian: I suspect that when we are in the case of Team giving up, it might 
not be "group has reached consensus about the AC Review and Team hates it", 
but rather "group is a mess, and Team believes there's no chance of getting to 
a charter to present to AC"
… In this case group might say "we think we can solve it with enough time"
… In this case you would want to resume Charter Refinement, not kick off AC 
Review.
… If in Charter Refinement phase, Team concludes it can't get any better, then 
can send to AC Review as-is.

Ian: [missed]

[Something about a 3-way decision]

florian: Either give up or go to AC Review, but another option is Charter 
Refinement continues.

florian: Proposal is if 5 ppl say "no you can't give up", then we resume 
Charter Refinement.
… at the option of Facilitator/Team we decide whether to keep working or push 
to AC Review.
… and if the Team thinks Charter Refinement is really a waste of time, they 
have option to kick it to the Council.

plh: Should we merge or take more time to review?

florian: Weakness of proposal of, if Team is being obstructive, then Team can 
decide to continue and not work on it.

Ian: In my case, Team announces a duration of Refinement. They'd have to 
announce a new duration.

anon: Can object to the choice of Facilitator

Ian: That's a staff decision, who is Facilitating.

florian: That's a pre-existing aspect.

plh: With that in mind, do we want to merge now?

<Ian> (Ok by me)

florian: Hard to manage lots of open PRs, so if we're comfortable with things 
then we should merge.

plh: Ian is ok to merge. Any objections?

RESOLUTION: Merge #992

plh: Florian and Ian, can you keep working on PRs so we can keep aligning the 
two proposals further?

florian: Some time challenge, but I will work on it.

Ian: Thanks for the discussion and PRs, will follow up.

[Ian departs]
Timelines

florian: My goal is to start AC Review by end of term.

plh: We'll need to have wide review before that.
… I would think that... 1 month is good?
… Some risk of if we get yet another proposal...

florian: I think it would be ideal if we can decide to start review at April 
AB meeting
… but that might be tight.

plh: We need to start review by mid-May

plh: So we need a decision from AB before May 9th

florian: Can you work with AB to make sure we have slot to discuss?

cwilso: Sure

florian: Also, I'll be in the area long enough that I could join an AB session 
on Process

plh: I'll be available as well.

plh: Let's make sure we have the questions to the AB ready for the AB to 
discuss in April so we can start the reviews on time.

plh: I'm somewhat at-risk wrt next meeting, but decent chance I can make it.

Meeting closed.
Summary of resolutions

     Merge #990 and editors are welcome to future changes based on the W3C 
website mission statement
     Merging #993.
     Merge #991
     Merge #992

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

Succeeded: s/scribe/anon

Succeeded: s/Process/Process compared to most of the AB.

Succeeded: s/plh:/.../

Succeeded: s/9h/9th/

Maybe present: anon, florian, Ian

All speakers: anon, cwilso, florian, Ian, plh, TallTed

Active on IRC: cwilso, florian, Ian, plh, scribeAssistant, TallTed

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2025 18:07:45 UTC