Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 23 Oct 2019

<jeff> I suppose I am also in the wrong room.

<jeff> I am in 646 166 938

<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai

<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer

dsinger: anything to add to the agenda?

[sounds of violin]

Registries and Living Standards

dsinger: Tantek raised an issue at TPAC, I've been discussing with Florian
... I'll continue to discuss with Florian
... re Registries
... and I'll return then
... Living Standards

Florian: we last met before TPAC
... fantasai and I added Teal to Everblue

https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/

Florian: we talked to people at TPAC and heard support in broad terms

<fantasai> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/

Florian: we need people to review everblue branch ^

<fantasai> diffs at https://w3c.github.io/w3process/everblue/

Florian: and file issues

plh_: glad to see that update
... as I'm talking with WGs about charter renewals, some are really hoping for Evergreen progress
... very important that we deliver something
... I defer to Wendy re Patent Policy

<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai

jeff: I'd like to mention three things
... Reveiw schedule and dissent
... Think it's great that Florian and fantasai have updated Everblue
... Put in IRC , but should go to Mailing List
... I would encourage them to put this branch on the ML for the entire W3C Process CG can review asap

florian: Will do.

jeff: In terms of schedule
... There's an AB meeting Nov 18-20
... I would like the AB to basically have a very thorough review of EverTeal at that point in time
... and our next Process CG meeting, Nov 13 is just 3 days before AB
... I think it would be highly desireable if we have a conensus on Nov 13
... as PRocess CG, where we want to take this
... That can lead into AB discussion
... and maybe we can get consensus of AB?
... That's important, among other things to move forward
... But as Wendy's about to say, PSIG wants to write patent policy
... but wants clarity from us on where they're going
... so we need to get that done in Nov
... or else we will lose weeks/months
... Third point is dissent
... I would like the Process CG to be aware that at least one member of AB thinks we're moving too quickly
... and not sufficiently well worked out yet
... Would be useful if Process CG figures out today that direction that fantasai/florian/jeff/plh have been advocating is the right direction

mchampion: I wanted to ask plh whether the feedback he's heard from WGs that they want these changes
... do they specifically want EverTeal, or some kind of Living Standard, or Evergreen, or what are ppl saying they want in the Process?
... to make the chartering process easier

<jeff> Fantasai: Service workers very excited about new direction

<jeff> ... MS2ger also interested if his work is in a functional WG

<jeff> ... haven't spoken to others

<jeff> Florian: Clarification new direction = ET

<jeff> Fantasai: Yes

mchampion: So EverTeal should be a reasonable middle ground to keep work at W3C, still needs Patent Policy changes
... ?
... That would be adequate for these groups?

fantasai: I believe so, yes

florian: I would also say that the Patent Policy changes are nice, but not required for the rest of EverTeal to work

fantasai: So we can write the Process to work with both policies, and can hook in the new policy when it's ready

mchampion: But will that be enough, without the patent policy?

<jeff> Fantasai: Won't be enough without PP enhancements

<jeff> ... can deploy process changes before PP if needed

<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to disagree re coupling and to discuss PSIG

<jeff> Mike: thanks

wseltzer: PSIG is willing to work on updating Patent Policy
... as soon as we offer a target to work towards
... They're not eager to do multiple patent policies
... what we will require from Patent Policy will depend on what we put in the Process
... As fantasai suggested, I do think that for many of the groups who are interested in continuous development
... the patent policy changes are critical to making it work for them
... in particular, not requiring to get to REC before getting commitments

florian: Not sure how deep to go
... PSIG has indicated they want to do this, yes
... fact that they can't start, not so true
... they have been given a list of issues to answer in July, still haven't answered
... but they aren't blocked on us, blocked on their choice to wait
... They resolved to review the questions they were asked in August, and then did not do that

dsinger: I think they're just confused about direction we're going in
... Let's get the clarity that they want, and we want, and we can resolve the problem
... Living Standards have periodic patent exclusion opportunities, why wouldn't EverTeal require that?

<jeff> +1 to David

florian: Full benefits aren't realized without patent policy changes
... but if we don't have a new patent policy in time, mechanics can still work
... but you don't get patent commitments until REC

<jeff> -1 to Florian's assertion that this would be enough

[instead, you just get exclusion opportunities linked to promises, as now]

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about exclusion opps

florian: You don't get the benefits of the whole package without the whole package, but then, you can have part of the benefits with part of it

dsinger: I thought the presentations at TPAC were confusing
... I also don't think we're giving them clean Living Standards, it's still REC Track
... I'm concerned we will lose people
... so really would like to present to AB such that AB and Process CG are satisfied
... So if simple explanation can be made to PSIG and AB...
... That's my concern

jeff: Want to endorse what dsinger just said
... I always thought we'd need a separate track to make clear the Evergreen
... but survey, 19/40 of members who responded to survey did not want a separate track

<mchampion> +1 to what David said, we need a crisp explanation of how Everteal+PP changes meets the demand for "Living Standards"

jeff: so now supporting EverTeal as a result
... would like to make clear, that if you want a relatively pure LS thing, explain how to do it
... as a guide

dsinger: ... experiment with new patent policy ...
... not entirely diagnostic

<dsinger> the results had 25 saying “Experiment by allowing Working Groups to opt into the new patent policy via their charter, while letting those that haven't opted in use the old policy.” with 29 saying “Replace the current Patent Policy with the new one for all Working Groups.”

florian: I think a lot of ppl were also in favor of experimenting a new patent policy
... but not in favor of a separate track

[florian and dsinger discuss question]

dsinger: but way ahead is clear, have process text, let's get that in front of ppl
... add a clear explainer
... to help me, PSIG, everyone else

<jeff> +1

dsinger: Anything more on Evergreen, Everteal, Registries, etc.?
... Amazing, didn't consume entire call

Other Pull Requests and Issues

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299

Make it clear than any decision can be objected to

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299

florian: Not clear atm what can be objected to
... this makes it clear that any decision described in the process can be objected to, unless specifically handled otherwise (e.g. AC Appeal)
... issue was raised in context of Director-Free, but not really coupled to it

dsinger: I've read it, and I'm ok with it

fantasai: lgtm

jeff: Seems to be history that ties this back to chair appointments, #281

<tink> LGTM

jeff: today, a chair has to be appointed, even a simple appointment like a chair retired from their company and wants to continue as Invited Expert
... How would that work here? Is that a decision that can be objected to?

florian: Yes

jeff: So we propose to AC we're going to make a decision
... then AC can say we don't think that's good, we need to bring to Director or to Council that this is a mistake?

florian: No, not a suggestion that there shoudl be an AC review
... Just says that any decision that *has* happened can be objected to

<jeff> Now, I understand. -1.

florian: Not really new, but implied, so trying to make it clearer
... Given it's supposed to be a clarification, not a change, what is your objetion?

jeff: Things which in my mind, solving problems that have not happened in reality, don't want to add bureaucracy

<mchampion> +1 to not solving problems that don't have real world examples

florian: This doesn't add any bureaucracy. Just clarifies whether your'e allowed to send an email "I object to this"

jeff: I think subjecting things to objetions... might land in Council. Going to tie ourselves in knots

florian: Your disagreement makes it more important that we clarify this
... if we don't have a general agreement of what can be objected to
... then needs clarification
... I thought any decision could be objected to

jeff: Let's say we have a WG that has two chairs, work for two companies, each use two different browser engines
... and one changes to other browser engine, does that mean can object?

dsinger: Need to read the text. Can object to the decision, has to be a decision to object to.

jeff: ...

dsinger: We're trying to be clear here

florian: I'm not attempting to fix anything, I'm attempting to know whether it's possible right now whether it's possible to objet to any particular decision

dsinger: Let's discuss at next call, so people can read the actual proposed text

tink: Wondering in Jeff's use case, is decision change in browser engine, or decision to appoint chair?

dsinger: I didn't think this was worth spending that much time on
... move back into GH, get concerns there

jeff: ask ppl to read dsingers' comments from August 12
... We had resolution to work on this as part of Director-free branch
... In answer to tink's question, I was making a rhetorical point
... if we think that we want to make it possible to object to Team chair assignments
... then might need to open up a broader assignment about how chairs are chosen and ojections to that

<dsinger> agreed, we labeled #281 as Director-free-specific; Florian has later realized that’s not necessarily true

jeff: including W3C decisions and things outside W3C
... things that happen outside W3C are more impactful in my experience

dsinger: If we can't resolve in next meeting, then will need to defer the issue

weiler: As an observation, there's not a process for appealing a chair appointment
... but is possible to object to various decisions of the chair
... as those build up, ppl appointing chair will get a memo

<jeff> Fantasai: You will not get it if chairs fail to make decisions

<cwilso> agrees it should be possible to object to chair appointment.

fantasai: but can always email W3M

<jeff> David: We are talking about appointing chairs.

florian: should get details in GH
... but want to clarify I am *not* trying to make a process for objecting to chair appointments
... Want to ask if all decisions in the Process can be objected to
... If not, then maybe no Formal Objection is possible unless we're in an AC REview
... Or if we want something in between, need to be clear which ones

jeff: Anything that can be objected to should be listed explicitly in the Process, if not clear, then clarify that one

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/325

Open standards Principles

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/325

dsinger: what to do?

florian: I think the Process is not where we do philosophy
... so I think we should close this no change

<dsinger> +1 to florian

dsinger: To me the Process defines how the engine works
... Not basic principles behind how the engine works

<mchampion> +1 to closing the issue

tink: Not objecting, but are we sure nothing in these principles would have an impact on the way the engine works?

florian: That's why I don't want to include, because I'm worried that it might

<mchampion> I discusses some of the potential problems this raises in the GItHub issue

dsinger: E.g. insistence on democracy, vs us being director-led consortium
... Principles belong in governing documents, not Process
... So closing on those grounds

RESOLUTION: Close #325 no change

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262

<scribe> Topic: discontinued

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262

dsinger: [quotes https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262#issuecomment-544825147]
... Is this what we mean by discontinued?
... should we put in process?

florian: I would push back on timing
... you could already link to relevant section of the Process from your use of "discontinued"
... But I think we need to change how discontinuing is done generally, so rather not worry about phrasing this section just yet
... Lack of clarity in this issue wasn't about the Process, it was lack of clarity in the document

fantasai: ...

florian: Also, clarifying the word "discontinue" wouldn't necessarily help, that document could have used "abandoned"

<dsinger> so, we conclude: accepted in principle, but we need to work on where this goes (there is existing text on stopping work, for example)

florian: problem was not linking to the section of the Process that it's talking about, not that word is undefined

<dsinger> akc tink

<Zakim> tink, you wanted to disagree and say I think we should clarify the phrase.

tink: I think it's worth clarifying

dsinger: Yes, but need to handle in right place in process

florian: We already have a sentence. It uses the word "cease" rather than "discontinue".

tink: We have clearly defined statesof a spec, and "discontinued" is not one of them

florian: This is not a REC that had been superseded, obsoleted, etc.
... It's a spec pre-REC that gote turned into a NOTE
... There is a section in the Process

<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/?status=ret

florian: that talks about this

tink: There's no clear state.

florian: We should create statuses for this, but there will be more than one status

dsinger: taking offline for Florian and I can work on it

<dsinger> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141

...

provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status

github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141

cwilso: Haven't done anything on this yet

dsinger: Hopes? expectations?

cwilso: yes, unlikely before mid-NOv

florian: Overlaps with previous topic we just discussed

Remaining Items

dsinger: Please look at issues offline, triage the issues
... Particular attention to [...]
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/334
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/328
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/326
... https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/324
... Please let us know if we should address sooner rather than later

wseltzer: Linked to charter review process, I commented on that
... email sharing our input on practices
... I propose we close those issues

florian: I propose we don't, but not enough time for why

jeff: Recommend Chair puts us on a schedule
... once we finalize registries and ever*
... draw a circle around it, move everything else to Process 2021
... More minutiae that we add to Process 2020
... more likely some AC rep will object, delay the big things like ever*

dsinger: yep
... next call Wed Nov 13th
... i"ll be on vacation

fantasai: could change it to Nov 6th

<plh> wfm

<cwilso> 6th is better, 13th is okay

dsinger: ok, someone else can chair if needed on the 13th

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

23 Oct 2019

Attendees

Contents