- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 14:15:29 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Summary of Resolutions:
- RESOLVED: Merge PR #1002 wrt role of the facilitator,
including suggested change wrt lack of consensus
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1002
- RESOLVED: Close #997 (replaced by suggested change in #1002).
- RESOLVED: Accept PR #1005 editorial rephrasing of charter
refinement objection handling
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1005
- RESOLVED: Merge PR #998 drop optional communication sentence
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/998
- RESOLVED: Reject PR #1001 to remove requirement for wide review
of charters
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1001
- RESOLVED: Close #999 with no changes
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/999
- RESOLVED: Merge #986 wrt AB/TAG removal per AB instructions,
follow up with AB about open questions
Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-w3process-minutes.html
And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================
W3C – DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE) 26 March 2025 Previous meeting. IRC log. Next meeting.
Attendees
Present
cwilso, plh
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
fantasai
Contents
Prep
Pull Requests about Charter Refinement
Facilitator vs chair
Reframe objection handling for charter refinement
Drop unnecessary remarks about optional communication
Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the guide
Dropping wide review from Charter REfinement
Drop summary of proposal from charter review notice
Edits for Removing AB/TAG Members
AC Meeting
Summary of action items
Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Prep
Round of introductions, since Jill Schmidt is joining us from Apple / PSIG
fantasai: Should talk about AC presentation, particularly the questions we
want to pose to AC / AB
… some of the substantive changes we're incorporating as we work to integrate
Ian's ideas probably need higher-level discussion
plh: I will be making the presentation. Draft of slides ...
https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/AC/process-cg-update/
Pull Requests about Charter Refinement
Facilitator vs chair
github: w3c/process#1002
florian: Current Process text re-uses concepts from standard group practies,
e.g. moving to CR.
… definition of consensus, role of chair, etc.
… However unlike Groups, we don't here have a clear definition of who the
participants are
… So Ian finds the analogy imperfect
… of invoking group decision and chair concepts
florian: These changes are intended to keep the intention of reflecting
consensus, without relying on those concepts
… using plural "decisions" to clarify that it is all the decisions leading up
to the final decision to submit to AC that need consensus, not just the final
decision
… [missed somethinga about Team Decisions]
… simplify by calling everything a Team Decision
… related PR 997 which adds a nuance to how we make decisions
… votes are weird, so instead of vote, that PR asks the Team to make a decision
… We can't take both PRs -- that one is adjusting how group decision is defined
… whereas this is removing that concept
… Overall I think this is clearer, particularly the part about whether to go
forward or abandon the work
… Paths to appeal continue to exist
… I think it's a reasonable change to take
<plh> fantasai: suggested change needs to be incorporated
florian: we need to be clear when consensus cannot be found, that an
overriding authority is used to make the decision
florian: Ian supports that suggested change as well
plh: OK, proposing to merge #1002 with the suggested change. Objections?
RESOLUTION: Merge #1002 with the suggested change.
RESOLUTION: Close #997 (replaced by suggested change)
Reframe objection handling for charter refinement
github: w3c/process#1005
florian: If FOs are raised during Charter Refinement, we made 2 exceptions
… One is wrt abandoning the work
… Another is when you want to object to the substance of the charter
… We decided to batch process them alongside AC Review comments
… But we did want to say, if someone objects to appointment of someone as the
chair, that needs to be handled in real time
… Not to create the ability to object to people, but acknowledging that this
is possible, make sure processing is not delayed
plh: by chair you mean facilitator?
florian: yeah
florian: Ian doesn't object to this, but to how much we draw attention to the
ability
… This change calls out the special cases, and then says "everything else is
as normal"
… This avoids drawing attention to it
… So delayed FOs are a) substance of charter and b) objections to starting AC
review
plh: Fine with change. Note that we have never had an FO to an individual.
florian: There were some objections to charters, which included chairing, but
not solely chairing
plh: Fine with proposed change, any others?
fantasai: Looks good. I consider it editorial.
plh: Proposed to merge 1005 as-is. Objections?
RESOLUTION: Accept #1005
Drop unnecessary remarks about optional communication
github: w3c/process#998
florian: Before we introduced Charter Refinement, Process already mentioned
that the Team may send a notice when starting work on a charter.
… this was called "Advance Notice"
… New Charter Refinement process introduces a formal notice for starting
refinement
… This sentence was kept/added in order to try to remove confusion about these
two notices
… the official notice of starting charter refinement (Required)
… and the advance notice of starting to draft a charter (optional)
… The sentence was trying to draw attention that these are different.
… But turns out readers are more confused by it actually.
… And saying that Team may send emails is not really helpful.
… Ian prefers to drop
plh: +1 to drop, simplify process
fantasai: defer to Team on this one, no opinion
RESOLUTION: Merge #998
Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the guide
florian: Before this PR, process says that if someone asks Team to start
charter review
… Team may deny if proposal is insufficiently mature, or doesn't align with
W3C scope/mission
… First version of the PR said, let's drop the why and put that in the guide
… This is an iteration based on fantasai's discomfort with that
… Having a hook to the guide is a good idea
… but having nothing in the guide about what that might be, maybe not so good idea
… So suggested tweak is to simply add "otherwise thinks the proposal doesn't
meet the charter assessment criteria"
plh: I'm fine either way. Good to clarify scope and mission
… link to those docs?
fantasai: we don't have a scope document
florian: NOt documented, but we have a scope. Defining composition of
fertilizer is not in scope for W3C.
fantasai: I'm a little hesitant...
fantasai: also you're reverting most of your PR, so it's a little unclear
fantasai: also the grammar is broken
fantasai: let's close this an open a new PR that is better
florian: Another PR that's relevant is 1001, which proposes dropping explicit
mention of wide review from the Process
florian: Ian thinks we don't need to mention it, it's already in Guide
florian: if we mention the Guide in the process, and everyone agrees it needs
to be done, we don't need to write it down
florian: so it's an example of a thing that could be in the guide that isn't
about refining
fantasai: This is about *starting* charter refinement. You can't use this link
to Guide to say that wide review is required.
… because we do wide review *during* charter refinement.
Dropping wide review from Charter REfinement
github: w3c/process#1001
plh: I'm uncomfortable dropping this.
… I agree we'll do it nevertheless, but it is a core value of our process.
… people come to W3C because of wide review
… I would keep it there to emphasize this value
fantasai: +1 to everything
… if something is a core value, and we would be upset if we didn't do them,
they belong in the Process
florian: I am also reluctant to remove this
florian: Extra motivation Ian mentioned was that, in an earlier iteration from
this we insisted more that the facilitator is in charge, and at end of Process
we have Team Verification. Under that framework, needed to mention wide review
so that Team verifies it.
… but the Team is in charge in general, so might not be necessary to verify
what the Team does
florian: That said, personally, I'd rather keep it
plh: still think we should keep it
plh: Tantek is mentioning flexibility, and we have flexibility built into
concept of wide review
… but it would be bad to not have wide review
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to contest that logic
<cwilso> +1 plh
fantasai: Even if a Team member is facilitator, having Team verification is
not redundant. Team checking other Team's work is still valuable, so this is
not redundant.
florian: So proposed to reject this PR
plh: Yes.
<cwilso> +1
RESOLUTION: Reject PR #1001
Drop summary of proposal from charter review notice
github: w3c/process#999
florian: Ian argues that we should drop this line of the process to make it
shorter, and that it's already clear that an email without a summary would be
a bad email
plh: I don't mind either way
fantasai: I would prefer to keep it. I don't think losing this line is that
much of a savings, and an email without any indication of what it's about is
not great
plh: Seems like a communication issue to document in /Guide
plh: Elika, do you object?
fantasai: I don't object, but I want to hear from an actual AC member
plh: cwilso? :)
cwilso: I would prefer to keep it.
plh: Any objection to close 999 with no action?
RESOLUTION: Close #999 with no change.
Edits for Removing AB/TAG Members
github: w3c/process#986
plh: Added because AB resolved on adopting this mechanism
florian: [summarizes proposal]
… unclear if the AB adopted specific text, or open to tweaking
fantasai: AB adopted the mechanism with 3/4 threshold. We can refine the
wording, though.
florian: Note that Council membership is fixed, not affected by this.
… would prefer to do that as a follow-up PR
florian: Other point is whether this new ability comes in addition or instead
of the CEO's ability to remove people (which until now was only way to remove
people)
cwilso: I stated that I was in favor of switching, and made clear that it was
a replacement
… I believe the minutes will agree that several others were on board with that
as the plan
… but it wasn't a major point of discussion
… I'm not sure why we would be adding more ways to remove members?
… If 3/4 of AB or TAG says "this member should be removed", pretty sure CEO
would go along with that. So we would be saying we don't need CEO.
… leaving to CEO to decide, "This person is disruptive, I don't like their
feedback", that's concerning
plh: Was the CEO involved in the discussion?
cwilso: He was not attending. Some Team were there.
plh: Would want CEO to be aware of that change.
plh: Not ready to merge this PR today...
<cwilso> +1 that we could add this today, and I think we had support from the
AB to do so.
fantasai: I didn't think it was clear in the discussion that we were removing
the CEO mechanism
… but I think it was clear that we are adding this one, so I think we should
merge this PR
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say I would like to address the other question
in this version of hte process
fantasai: unless we feel that this PR is not a good representation of that
mechanism
cwilso: I would like us to consider this at the same time. We should go back
to AB and ask this question, not leave it open
florian: Do you mean you don't want to merge PR and wait several cycles of
Process, or
cwilso: correct
florian: but no problem with merging, and quickly following up with AB?
cwilso: correct
… We agreed on this change, let's merge it. But we should follow up on the CEO
question.
plh: Proposed to merge PR as-is, and open issue of removing CEO ability and
quickly cycle with AB on that front.
cwilso: I thought when we discussed in the AB that we were agreeing to replace
this ability.
… I think it's goofy to add rather than replaced, but certainly not opposed,
since I think this is what we should be doing.
plh: Any objection to merging?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR #986
ACTION: fantasai follow up with AB about whether we meant to remove the CEO
removal powers or not
AC Meeting
plh: Want to kick off Wide Review by mid-April
florian: I think Ian would prefer if we merged all the PRs, but wouldn't
object to starting wide review with those we have merged
<plh> Slides
florian: we probably want to review that we made all the necessary changes and
it all still makes sense, but can kick off wide review
cwilso: I expect us to resolve the remaining blocking issues at the upcoming
F2F (immediately after AC meeting)
plh: See draft of slides. Thanks very much for maintaining the Changes list,
easy to highlight the important ones.
… Even for changes, won't have time to go into details.
… I listed items to cover as impacting REC track, or chartering, etc.
… Implication for AC is good standing, and threshold adjustments
… and clarifications wrt Councils
… Those were big items I found
… Any questions we should ask AC during the session?
<florian> https://florian.rivoal.net/talks/process-2025-team/
florian: In case it helps, here are the slides from my presentation to the
Team. Feel free to steal content.
florian: Wrt questions, not sure what to ask.
… All the things we discussed are subtle, and idk if we can fit into 10-minute
presentation
<plh> fantasai: no specific questions. Tess wanted clarity on appeal mechanism
<plh> ... be more specific on key decisions, managing dissent
<plh> ... highlight also specific changes that are affecting the AC
florian: so not debating proposal X vs Y, but describing the mechanisms and
asking if they're ok
<plh> florian: AB should consider inviting Ian to its meeting
florian: Signal to this group, I think we should do our final review
fantasai: Btw, PSIG has some concerns about major vs minor changes to
charters, what qualifies. We can expect them to propose some clarifications.
Thanks to florian and Ian for working through these issues / PRs.
Summary of action items
fantasai follow up with AB about whether we meant to remove the CEO
removal powers or not
Summary of resolutions
Merge #1002 with the suggested change.
Close #997 (replaced by suggested change)
Accept #1005
Merge #998
Reject PR #1001
Close #999 with no change.
Merge PR #986
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version
244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).
Diagnostics
Succeeded: s/florian:/...
Succeeded: s/Pull Requests/Pull Requests about Charter Refinement/
No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: fantasai
Maybe present: fantasai, florian
All speakers: cwilso, fantasai, florian, plh
Active on IRC: cwilso, fantasai, florian, plh, TallTed
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2025 18:15:37 UTC