- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 14:22:38 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Summary of Resolutions:
- RESOLVED: Confirm edits from CFC of clarifications:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Apr/0003.html
- RESOLVED: Accept PR #1026 fix confusing wording wrt adding
features to RECs
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1026
https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/1004
- RESOLVED: Accept PR #1025 clarifying role of a chair
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1025
- RESOLVED: Accept PR #1022 shortening Council formation wording,
but add a note clarifying that TAG/AB elections don't affect membership
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1022
- RESOLVED: Merge PR #1012 and PR #1011 cleaning up 3-way decision
at end of Charter Refinement and handling of refinement expiry
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012
- RESOLVED: Merge PR #1000 referencing charter assessment criteria
in /Guide
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1000
Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-w3process-minutes.html
And also pasted below for search...
=======================================================================
W3C – DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE) 23 April 2025 Agenda. IRC log.
Attendees
Present
cwilso, florian, Ian, plh, TallTed
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
fantasai, Ian
Contents
Simple Pull Requests to Review
Confirm CFC
Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
Clarify role of the Chair
Collapse some wording wrt Council formation
Complicated Pull Requests to Review
Refine Expiration of Charter Refinement
Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement
Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide
AC Recall of the AB or TAG
Scheduling
Summary of resolutions
Summary of issues
Meeting minutes
<TallTed> RDF-star WG SPARQL task force, W3Process WG, Solid CG, and DID WG
all overlap. Something's gotta give!
<Ian> Agenda
Simple Pull Requests to Review
Confirm CFC
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2025Apr/0003.html
fantasai: Just wanted to check if any complaints
florian: nope
RESOLUTION: Accept edits
Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
PR: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
ISSUE: Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
Florian: like a reasonable change. This is a part of the spec has confused
people, and the attempt seems good to me, maybe a bit longer
… Phrased as a note, but that's correct -- it was just reminding of existing
things.
plh: I wasn't aware there was a misunderstanding around this part of the process
florian: Some confusion about what's a new REC
fantasai: Confusion came when reviewing a charter, which had errors. Even the
Team Contact was confused.
… So wanted to clarify what this paragraph means
… One question was whether to keep the second sentence, which is just
examples. Might be useful to keep since it's confusing.
plh: There's a Patent Policy FAQ on the topic of delta specs.
florian: Might want a Guide article about this, but probably on top of this.
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1026
github: w3c/process#1026
Clarify role of the Chair
github: Clarify role of the Chair:
github: Clarify role of the Chair:
github: w3c/process#1025
florian: Same reaction as you, not sure what motivated the change, but seems
harmless!
cwilso: sgtm
RESOLUTION: Merge 1025
Collapse some wording wrt Council formation
github: w3c/process#1022
plh: Seems editorial.
… do we need to talk about it?
florian: Replaces text with less text. Effectively editorial.
… I think result is fine.
… TallTed approved it, and was involved in previous iteration, so seems good
to merge.
cwilso: Do we say anywhere else that elections don't change the Council
membership?
… Seems to warrant saying explicitly, that elections don't change membership.
florian: It's implied by the previous part of the sentence.
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (an unaffected by elections)."
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by elections)."
cwilso: Should be clearer
<plh> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by future elections)." ?
fantasai: It's not just elections
… would suggest taking the wording and adding a note
<Ian> Could say "is fixed (and unaffected by changes to the AB or TAG)."
plh: Maybe adjust the PR, and then come back later?
cwilso: Would be fine to reduce the normative text if we have a note.
… Also happy to leave to Elika to craft the note and do async
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 1022 with addition of a Note
Complicated Pull Requests to Review
Refine Expiration of Charter Refinement
github: w3c/process#1011
florian: This defines explicitly that if you extend duration of Charter
Refinement, that's a decision.
… It also clarified that if you reach the deadline and fail to do anything:
don't extend, don't move forward, etc. -- That counts as giving up
… That's to patch the hole that we effectively have a decision, but if we
don't declare it as such
… If you abandon by dragging past the deadline, want to make it clear you can
complain about it
Ian: I had mentioned in the thread that if we're giving people an opportunity
to object, they have to know about their 8-week window's start
… You mentioned another path to cover the announcement part, where are we with
that potential change?
florian: Yes, when we abandon things, we ought to say it. But if we forget,
what happens?
… In principle, if Team abandons, should announce it.
… [reads PR]
… I think maybe next PR covers announcement, if not we should talk about it
… Here first, it says that Team may extend the period by sending an announcement.
… That should be no problem.
… Second part says, if fail to announce anything at all, that counts as a
de-facto decision to abandon.
… Maybe need to be clear that not supposed to fall under this path.
plh: I'm fine with the proposal.
… Agree with defining as the decision.
… Are we resetting the clock?
… If we announce later?
florian: My idea is let's not be overprescriptive, use common sense. If you
miss the deadline by a day or two, it's fine, what's the difference between
extending and starting a new effort?
Ian: I'm mildly uncomfortable with no visible signals of a decision.
… If not announce, I would say there is a no decision. It's a bug.
… At least not a hidden decision.
florian: If decision had irreversible consequences I would agree, but not
here. Resuming can be done at no cost with no downside
plh: If Team wants to misbehave, and we have a silent decision to reject
florian: It's a decision, even if silent. If just extended without a decision,
then can't object.
… Being silent is bad, but at least we can process it.
plh: let's go to the next
florian: This new paragraph we looked at is moving between two others that
will change.
Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement
github: w3c/process#1012
florian: There are series of change suggestions from Ted, and I think only the
latest is current...
… I think they're attempting to be editorial, but not convinced they're better.
… Anyway
… This decision at the end of Charter Refinement is complicated because it's
3-way decision.
… You can object to one of them, and if you do, and council agrees with you,
which of the other two happens?
… So this makes it a bit special. Tries to enable a simple path.
… Maybe I stop talking and we just read it.
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012/files
florian: Note one thing that doesn't change, if someone objects to start of AC
Review, nothing special happens -- just batch the FO with the rest.
… othrewise some options
Ian: I'm questioning whether it's really 3 choices or 2
… 3 is creating some complexity
… Nature of 2 of the choices is very similar: either going to proceed or not
proceeding with proposal
… Choice is about the proposa.
… Extending is a process-related proposal, consequence separate from proposal.
… Extending is not the same type of thing
florian: They're not the same type, but about the same thing.
… If Team decides to extend, and someone object, what does that mean?
… Does it mean "it's good enough, send it to the AC" or "it's never going to
have consensus, give up already, let's not waste our resources continuing"
… Maybe it will get consensus because too many people gave up engaging
… But that's not good
… [more examples]
… [explains the PR]
… Idk that this is perfect, but I think we need to do something here.
<plh>
https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/process/1012/5f0a694...frivoal:0b9b15a.html#charter-development
plh: The GH changes are hard to read. If you look at the diff it's a lot
easier to understand.
TallTed: Doesn't show the suggestions. I was trying to make clearer the fork
in the road.
… fantasai's comment was saying we give the Team a choice
https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1012/files#r2039908853
florian: I agree that the last suggestion means the same as what I intend.
… earlier ones maybe not
plh: How do ppl feel? do we merge with the suggestions, or ppl unhappy?
Ian: I remain uncomfortable. Spidey sense about the complication. If we want
to extend by a month and someone FOs, then have 2 months of FO handling.
Ian: This complicates the situation. Should say either go to AC review or not;
or extend or not. Two decisions.
… Too complicated for general case.
TallTed: Sympathetic with Ian, but the reason for documents like this is to
cover the edge cases.
… If the edge cases arrive, this is how we deal.
… Contracts are there for when someone stops being reasonable.
<Ian> fantasai: Council path is not necessarily a 2-month path. The Council
could short-circuit
<plh> fantasai: the council is not necessarily a 3-months path, it could be
short-circuit
florian: Agree some complexity. But we have difference of textual complexity
and situational complexity.
… Some text that is easy to apply.
… But without it we can be put into awkward situations
… which can be more intricate.
… So trade-off between real complexity vs textual complexity, prefer the latter
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to TallTed
Ian: Ted, I take your point about why contracts exist.
… But how we write it may be different from the topics it covers.
… If it were written so that 99% case were covered simply, and addendum for
the complicated cases
… E.g. add that you can object to an extension
… Cover the edge case after the ordinary case
florian: Formally objecting to abandoning or extending is not going to be
uncommon anyway
… so the whole paragraph is an exception
Ian: We have this lighter-weight objection mechanism with 5 people. Remains in
place. But bit about extension be dealt with separately after that. That will
happen approximately 0% of the time.
… weaving 3rd option complicates reading of the usual case
plh: Here's what I propose, Ian, if you can live with it.
… If we merge this PR as-is, and if we have better wording during wide review,
we can come back
florian: Yes. There's an editorial question. And there's a substantive one.
… Sure, we can take various editorial options.
… But there's a quesiton of what options to people have.
… I think the existence of these options will make reality simpler.
… So I agree with plh, let's merge the PR and then work on editorial improvements.
Ian: I'm ok with that approach.
plh: So let's merge 1012 and 1011, with TallTed's suggestion and typo fix
florian: Ok, so then our follow-up actions would be look at editorial
improvements, and ensure sufficient announcements
RESOLUTION: Merge 1012 and 1011
Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide
github: w3c/process#1000
florian: We discussed previously
… Process doesn't need to say too much, because would be in Guide
<Ian> scribe nick: Ian
fantasai: Ian provided a list of considerations beyond the two in the text.
… but 4 fall under scope and mission.
… various ones are covered by mission and mature.
… I don't love having assessment elsewhere which might be arbitrary
… it would be nice to create a category like "otherwise impractical"
fantasai: I will not object to this (given time constraint)
<fantasai> Ian: There's value in being more explicit because it becomes more
predictable
<fantasai> ... For example, some of the things you said might be understood to
be related to maturity, might not jump out at somebody
<fantasai> ... So might be surprised if advised if they need to get more
community support
<fantasai> ... So value in being explicit, but not in Process
<fantasai> ... So pushed off a lot to staff to get things done
<fantasai> ... Don't expect there to be any absurd requests
<TallTed> age doesn't automatically equate to maturity...
<fantasai> florian: "otherwise doesn't meet the criteria" is open-ended, but
they can object to things in Guide
<fantasai> ... so I'm ok with this
<fantasai> plh: Seems we need a PR for Guidebook
<fantasai> Ian: We have a whole revision to do, and I have a draft of that,
but haven't updated lately
<fantasai> plh: Yes, but here we're linking to Guide so we should be clear
<fantasai> ... if we do merge this, we need a PR against Guidebook
<fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge?
RESOLUTION: Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook
AC Recall of the AB or TAG
<fantasai> PR: w3c/process#888
ISSUE: w3c/process#882
<fantasai> florian: [summarizes PR]
<fantasai> ... AB has interest in this, but not resolved to add yet.
<fantasai> ... Martin Thomson has a bunch of comments wrt how AC Appeals are run
<fantasai> plh: Did we have feedback from the TAG on this PR?
fantasai: AB was split on whether to have both mechanisms or only one.
… that's an ongoing AB conversation
Florian: The AB needs to ask the TAG
<fantasai> our job here is to refine the proposal and forward to the AB for a
decision
PLH: If the AB wants to merge it they can do so, but the CG shouldn't do the
merge on its own
<fantasai> plh: Any comments on this PR before it goes to the AB?
<fantasai> florian: As part of rebasing, I had to deal with conflicts and things
<fantasai> ... This ability to fire entirety of AB or TAG has been called a
"recall" or a "vote of no confidence". Latest calls it a "recall".
<fantasai> ... as opposed to "removal" when removing one member
<fantasai> fantasai: "vote of confidence" refers to just the vote. "recall"
covers the whole process
<fantasai> florian: Other question is, is the re-use of the AC Appeal
mechanism appropriate way to do this.
<fantasai> fantasai: Running a full recall is pretty heavy, should requre the
AC to vote for it to happen.
<fantasai> plh: Can we send to AB ?
<fantasai> florian: Merging stuff related to removal/recall is the last major
thing.
<fantasai> plh: Assuming they reach a conclusion, can we start the wide review
of the process docuent?
<fantasai> florian: I think that's where we are
Scheduling
<fantasai> fantasai: We're still waiting on PSIG
<fantasai> [discussion of scheduling]
<fantasai> Meeting closed.
Summary of resolutions
Accept edits
Accept PR 1026
Merge 1025
Merge PR 1022 with addition of a Note
Merge 1012 and 1011
Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook
Summary of issues
Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs
w3c/process#882
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version
244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).
Diagnostics
Succeeded: s/Seems/Florian:/
Succeeded: s/what sure/not sure/
Succeeded: s/Pull Request to Review/Simple Pull Requests to Review/
Succeeded: s/PR: AC Recall of the AB or TAG//
Succeeded: s/.../
Succeeded: s/Topic: Moving Forward//
Maybe present: fantasai, PR
All speakers: cwilso, fantasai, florian, Ian, plh, PR, TallTed
Active on IRC: cwilso, fantasai, florian, Ian, plh, TallTed
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2025 18:22:46 UTC