Minutes: W3C Process CG Telecon 14 January 2026

Summary of Resolutions and actions:

* Close issues: 328, 414

Full minutes: https://www.w3.org/2026/01/14-w3process-minutes
And also pasted below for search.

Ian

====

Attendees
  Present: Brent (Chair), florian, Francois, Ian (Scribe), TallTed
  Regrets: PLH

Contents

1. [5]Update on AB Process Refactoring
2. [6]Process PRs
1. [8]w3c/process#937
2. [9]w3c/process#1021
3. [10]w3c/process#1129
4. [11]Propose to close items
1. [12]w3c/process#328
2. [13]w3c/process#414

Meeting minutes

Update on AB Process Refactoring

Brent: One bit of feedback we received is "make it easier to
find what we're looking for"
… and the accessibility folks have some good ideas.
… we heard (during TPAC) a lot related to horizontal reviews.
… updating recommendations part of the process is not
well-understood (or if understood, not well-liked)

Florian: I have an idea on how to improve "the specs are a
mess"
… writing diffs is hard. Tools could help, but not sure if it's
generally do-able (or may need AI)

(Some discussion about whether people know the options for
doing revisions)

Ian: can we hear the big themes? From what I heard so far (and
would add my own thoughts):

* Horz reviews
* Maintenance
* Rechartering
* Usability of materails

Ian: Now is a good time to develop a plan, prioritize for 2026

Florian: Regarding "going back to CR" there are challenges for
some groups (e.g., CSS) but if there's not a challenge with
changing status, going back to CR is often the right solution

Francois: Some feedback I have heard about proposed amendments
is that they did not understand the different implications
between staying at Rec and going back to CR.

(Brent continues reviewing main themes)

Brent: Some challenges around Formal Objections. In some cases
it feels like input (FO) is coming in too late.
… can be frustrating to get feedback just before a deadline
from people who have not been involved in work.
… it's also difficult to track the process of handling Formal
Objections

Brent: Another theme is rechartering. People ask "why are we
doing this every two years."

Ian: I think that's a great topic to revisit, e.g., building on
the example of the CSS WG, which is a "super" group, which
might be a direction to look into.
… Staff resource allocation is another thing to look at,
perhaps.
… We could envision that once work has been ongoing for some
time, you get a "free pass" to continue the work
… Just ideas.

Brent: We did hear some other pain points about rechartering,
but the Process has improved since those events. The AB does
not think much will need to be done around recharerting.

Brent: There are some smaller bits on IE, CoC, registries (but
not concentrated feedback on this topic)

Florian: CR drafts are partly for morality --> Going back to WD
is possible but feels like a regression.

Brent: The plan moving forward for the AB: we have a FTF
meeting in early February. Refactoring will be an important
part of that agenda.
… Tess has taken the lead on the refactoring work item
… I am working on this as well.
… we are hoping to identify and make resolutions on low-hanging
fruit.
… the AB is looking for some easy wins.
… there seem to be places where tooling changes would be very
helpful (e.g., horz reviews, FO handling)

Florian: Would you consider submitting feedback to the team?
They might have other ideas (e.g., more tooling) than changes
to the Process.

Brent: The AB plans to do this:

* Write down problem statements

* Offer suggestions from the AB's perspective as input to: the
process CG, the Team

Ian: Will the AB "shut down" some topics or say "We heard some
feedback but don't think it's a priority"

Brent: My hope is that by the end of the Feb FTF meeting we
have a solid list of problem statements.
… and ideally a couple of ideas for how to solve them.

Brent: I want to see solutions emerge from a dialog

florian: Sounds great. Please do share the problem statements
even if you don't have suggestions for addressing them.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to mention breakouts day

Ian: Breakouts Day might be a way for the AB to get feedback on
problem statements.

Process PRs

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

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

[15]w3c/process#937

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

<brent> Github: [16]w3c/process#937

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

Florian: There was a recent discussion that did not yet
converge. I think there is going to be a survey to gather more
information.
… let's postpone this one.

Brent: Yes, Board and AB are looking at this.

[17]w3c/process#1021

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

<brent> Github: [18]w3c/process#1021

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

Ian: Given recent work to help the community understand the
respective roles of the Board and AB, I think we should revisit
this text and leverage the recent efforts to clarify roles.

<brent> +1

[19]w3c/process#1129

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

<brent> Github: [20]w3c/process#1129

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

Florian: PSIG is discussing this and has not yet converged. But
one note is that prior to 2019 there was no formal rule about
what to do regarding non-Member contributions , and the PP FAQ
explained that it's the responsibility of a WG Chair to do the
right thing. In 2019 a formal rule was introduced but the PP
FAQ was not updated.

Brent: My first reaction is that the PSIG should update the FAQ

Ian: Two areas of concern for me include (1) where rules should
reside [IMO, should not be in the process] and (2) who has
responsibilities (e.g., Chairs v. Team)

Brent: Since PSIG is discussion, let's await their findings.

Propose to close items

[21]w3c/process#328

[21] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/328

<brent> Github: [22]w3c/process#328

[22] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/328

Brent: TAG and AB are invited to review charters.
… especially if there are Formal Objections
… so it feels this issue has been superseded by events and can
be closed.

Florian: +1 to closing. (And the other two as well)

Florian: I think there were multiple meanings to "formally
review"; only one meaning has been addressed (but others not
pushed forward)

(No objections to closing 328)

[23]w3c/process#414

[23] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/414

<brent> Github: [24]w3c/process#414

[24] https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/414

Ian: Is there a stronger characterization that "WG for things
that get implemented" while "IG are for other things, such as
guidelines"?

Ian: I am ok to close this issue

(No objections to closing 414)


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

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2026 17:58:38 UTC