Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 25 February 2026

Summary of Resolutions and actions:

* Close issue 694

Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/25-w3process-minutes
And also pasted below for search.

Ian

====
Present: Brent Zundel (Chair), Ding Wei, Florian Rivoal, François Daoust, Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Ted Thibodeau

Meeting minutes

PRs

<brent> [13]https://github.com/w3c/process/pulls

[13] https://github.com/w3c/process/pulls

[14]w3c/process#1129

[14] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1129

<brent> Github: [15]w3c/process#1129

[15] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1129

Florian: The core is probably not being disputed. I think we
should converge on text to bring to PSIG.

ACTION: Florian to create a draft that he feels best represents
consensus of the thread to present to PSIG

TallTed: I think we should emphasize "secure" rather than
"request"; ok for that to be another pull request

[16]w3c/process#1021

[16] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021

<brent> Github: [17]w3c/process#1021

[17] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021

Brent: I believe we have acted on comments people have made and
the text as currently in the PR reflects feedback from the AB
and elsewhere

Ian: I remain slightly concerned that the mission statements
for the AB and Board of Directors are not sufficiently
separated.
… To a person who is not well-versed in the inner workings of
W3C, this appears as if there's overlap.
… "Guidance to the Team", for example. I understand it's
different.

Brent: There has been tweaking about this.
… Also related to the comment "Do not define yourselves in
relation with the Board".
… Guidance to the Team was something that arose during these
tweaks.

Ian: Thanks for hearing my comments!

<TallTed> looking at [18]https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/
1021/files , there are two open comments from ChrisN

[18] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021/files

florian: I think the nature of the powers between Board and AB
are sufficiently different that even if there is overlap, the
topics will be handled in different ways.

TallTed: There are two open comments from ChrisN

Brent: I will respond to both open comments to indicate that I
believe the text is responsive and to let the group know if the
comments have been addressed.

Florian: Do we think the AB should give the final ok?

Brent: The AB has been invited multiple times to review and
some have.

[19]w3c/process#937

[19] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/937

<brent> Github: [20]w3c/process#937

[20] https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/937

ACTION: Ian to endeavor to secure the list of w3c members with
non-AC rep member reps (to support AB and Board conversation)

Florian: if the answer to the question is "it's fine, let's
just merge these" then please read the draft text in the pull
request.

Process Issues

<brent> [21]https://github.com/w3c/process/
issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc

[21] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues?q=is:issue state:open sort:updated-asc

[22]w3c/process#694

[22] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/694

<brent> Github: [23]w3c/process#694

[23] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/694

Florian: There's a proposal to give choice to people which
length term they want. There's no consensus after 4 years for a
change.
… but there's another question: what does "got most support" in
STV ranking algorithm
… so this is an open question; maybe we know maybe we don't
know who has the most support. But this should be a separate
issue.
… within a given round there is no ranking

TallTed;I think STV yields a full order after the last round

Florian: Suggest to close current issue. For the subplot, it's
probably ok but we can open a new issue if it turns out not to
be

Ian: Looking at the result of an STV election. Which is what
I'm familiar with. It shows candidates being thrown out.
There's no ranking. I'm not exactly sure what got used in my
example though.
… In this example, only one elected person per round.

Florian: David had proposed an order in the issue. With the
goal of being explicit on one order.

Ian: Looking at another recent example. There does seem to be
some numbers available in the last round.
… In the end, I'm hearing that there is no problem.

Brent: Anyone opposed to closing this issue?

[No opposition]

RESOLUTION: Close issue 694

[24]w3c/process#689

[24] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/689

<brent> Github: [25]w3c/process#689

[25] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/689

Florian: It's true now (and might have been true 4 years ago)
that people who have been on the AC have access to ac-forum for
lifetime (given the policy of ac-forum). Should this be the
case for TAG and Board as well?

Florian: ...I think it would be useful to have these people who
have served the consortium share perspectives. And I don't see
why it would not be AB-only.

Brent: While I agree that should it continue for the AB it
should be extended to the TAG + Board, there is also a risk
that some voices of long-time participants may be thought to
carry more weight.

Brent: Another concern under the current policy that might be
aggravated by inviting more people is that we don't have
adequate moderation.

Florian: Removing AB might remove a smaller set of people than
imagined because many on the AB have also been AC reps

Brent: is this a decision of the process CG?

Florian: I think the existing access has been granted via
advice to the Team from the AB. But the Proc Doc defines
w3c-ac-forum and could also expand who has access.

Florian: The Process does not mention the list by name, but
mandates two communication channels.

Ian: Another option. Have a narrow list as mandated by the
Process. I don't know if that's useful.
… Taking the point that the Process document could expand the
forum to the elected boards, alumni, etc.

Florian: ac-forum is Member-only and if you are not part of a
Member Agreement, is this a risk of just being subscribed to a
list not under NDA? I don't know if we do this for the moment
and we probably should (even if not pressing)

[26]w3c/process#697

[26] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697

<brent> Github: [27]w3c/process#697

[27] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697

Brent: Should we have term limits?

Florian: If we have a shallow pool and have term limits we run
the risk of not filling seats

TallTed: I think term limits may be useful in some contexts but
I think in general they are a blunt instrument that don't
necessarily do what we hope they do. So I would not encode them
firmly.

tidoust: Florian makes some points on the thread that suggest
this approach would not lead to significant change

[28]w3c/process#697 (comment)

[28] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/697#issuecomment-2677479218

Brent: I'm hearing in this room that the answer is pretty
strongly "no"
… the question I have related to this is: where else should
this conversation be happening?

Ian: Two topics: incumbent bias, and pool of people for the
elections.
… Bigger problem is having a rich supply of people who runs for
elections.
… If that discussion is not happening, that should be a good
discussion to have.

Brent: The AB has been discussing "development"

Ian: No objection to closing 697, but I think the conversation
about nurturing people to participate in elections should
continue.

Florian: I think we should ask the person who raised the issue
if they are ok closing the issue.

Brent: Will mark as "proposed to close"

Summary of action items

1. [29]Florian to create a draft that he feels best represents
consensus of the thread to present to PSIG
2. [30]Ian to endeavor to secure the list of w3c members with
non-AC rep member reps (to support AB and Board
conversation)

Summary of resolutions

1. [31]Close issue 694




--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 917 450 8783

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2026 21:10:40 UTC