Simplify phrasing about council composition

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Pull Requests to Review.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<plh> Topic: Pull Requests to Review
<wendyreid> plh: let's look at the work in PRs
<wendyreid> ... 701
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/701
<wendyreid> ... clarify the role of the team contact and define the term
<wendyreid> florian: I will introduce
<wendyreid> ... this is an editorial PR, we define who and what the team contact is
<wendyreid> ... mention they are there to support the council
<wendyreid> ... they are there to help
<wendyreid> ... stepping stone to the next PR
<wendyreid> plh: I approved, but previously, the team was not participating in the council, it's hard to assist when you are out of the loop
<wendyreid> ... it's important to introduce the definition
<wendyreid> ... any objections?
<wendyreid> ... going... going... merge!
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/702
<wendyreid> ... for PR 702, using the definition
<wendyreid> florian: This one is to define how the team contact can participate, they can participate in the council
<wendyreid> ... due to confidentiality, they could not previously. This was preventing team contacts from helping
<plh> q+
<wendyreid> ... includes the Team Contact as a particpant, but a non-voting one
<wendyreid> plh: As part of the consideration for nominating the team contact, we want to avoid conflict of interest
<wendyreid> ... the team contact of the group under formal objection would not be the team contact for the council
<wendyreid> ... to avoid conflict
<plh> ack plh
<Dingwei__> q+
<wendyreid> florian: This question was raised to the AB directly, and the AB resolved to do this
<wendyreid> ... it's less should we do it, and more how to phrase it
<wendyreid> ... Ted has mentioned a broader problem about mentioning the council, when there could be several
<wendyreid> ... he logged a new issue
<wendyreid> ... we should deal with that
<wendyreid> ... aside from that, my take is that this PR is ok
<plh> ack Dingwei__
<wendyreid> Dingwei__: In my experience in the FO council
<npd> +1 for confidentiality including team contact
<wendyreid> ... I get a feeling sometimes, we don't have all of the people who can answer
<wendyreid> ... we might want to propose that the body raising the FO participate to help with explaining the facts
<florian> q+ to respond to dingwei
<plh> q+
<plh> ack florian
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to respond to dingwei
<wendyreid> ... would be helpful to have that information
<wendyreid> florian: This is deliberate but, the current situation is not that the council cannot hear from them
<wendyreid> ... they can invite anyone they need details from
<wendyreid> ... anyone they find important to listen to
<Dingwei__> q+
<wendyreid> ... if the council feels they know enough, they don't have to
<plh> q- later
<wendyreid> ... having the team contact will help with some of this too
<wendyreid> ... may be able to share facts
<plh> ack Dingwei__
<wendyreid> ... still have the ability to hear from anyone
<tzviya> q+ to talk about guidelines for FO Council
<wendyreid> Dingwei__: Florian you are speaking from a process perspective, but when we are organizing an FO council, the invitations do not go out to all of these parties
<florian> q+
<plh> ack tzviya
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about guidelines for FO Council
<plh> q-
<wendyreid> tzviya: I jut wanted to mention what goes in the process is not what will go in the documentation for the chair council
<wendyreid> ... more detailed information for what will happen will go there, does not need to be in the process
<TallTed> q+
<wendyreid> ... Dingwei__ I think you are right, but that is documentation for the council and Yves is working on it
<plh> ack florian
<wendyreid> plh: We have flexibility to put things in the guide to make it operational
<wendyreid> florian: In the first council we did invite the objector and WG, as we had questions, we didn't do it for the most recent one
<wendyreid> ... initial invites go to the council, but we can invite others
<plh> ack TallTed
<wendyreid> TallTed: It seems that it would make sense to refer to that other guide in the process document
<wendyreid> ... to make it clear not all the details are there
<wendyreid> plh: Agreed, once that documentation appears, we will link to it
<wendyreid> TallTed: Suggesting a handwave reference now, since several of us are not aware of it
<wendyreid> plh: How should we handle that?
<wendyreid> florian: hand-wavy references already exist, but one that goes to a document that doesn't exist yet is more challenging
<TallTed> +1 for issue as placeholder
<wendyreid> plh: Maybe one that reminds us we need to add the reference once available
<wendyreid> TallTed: Works for me
<wendyreid> plh: Any objections to merging 702?
<wendyreid> ... will pen a seperate issue for a reference
<npd> is there an issue already for the Guide on best practice for running a Council?
<wendyreid> ... let's merge 702
<wendyreid> ... 709!
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/709
<wendyreid> florian: Another one the AB has approved
<wendyreid> ... looking to check if the wording is fine, it may be necessary to replace a chair of the council
<wendyreid> ... due to time, or other reasons, request from the AB is that we enable the team contact to relaunch chair selection if suggested by the chair or the group
<plh> q?
<wendyreid> plh: With the expectation that it should not be a surprise to the council
<wendyreid> florian: Yes
<npd> q+
<wendyreid> npd: I'm confused by this, I understand if the chair has to step down, but this text doesn't suggest that
<wendyreid> ... this seems like if the team contact wants a new chair
<plh> ack npd
<wendyreid> ... they can iniate the change
<wendyreid> florian: If that happens, the council can reselect the same chair
<wendyreid> ... but it should not be a surprise
<plh> q+
<wendyreid> ... we didn't give them the ability to pick a chair, only initiate the process
<tzviya> q+
<wendyreid> plh: Let me add, the phrasing is "oh the team can do whatever they want", but that can also be clarified in the guide
<wendyreid> ... we already get criticism on the length of the guide
<wendyreid> ... focus on implementation of the process
<wendyreid> ... as long as they are checks in the process
<wendyreid> ack plh
<plh> ack tzviya
<wendyreid> tzviya: I think the wording is clunky, doesn't read like checks and balances
<wendyreid> ... chair selection is done by the council
<wendyreid> florian: The wording is that the team contact can initiate the chair selection
<wendyreid> plh: Members of the AB are here
<wendyreid> tzviya: We were focused on the resolution, not the wording, leaving it to process
<wendyreid> plh: Do we have enough information to proceed?
<wendyreid> florian: It does not highlight the checks and balance
<wendyreid> ... a guide article that explains everything would help
<wendyreid> plh: How many people think we need to reword this?
<florian> s/does not highlight the checks and balance/does not highlight the checks and balance, but they're there/
<TallTed> q+
<wendyreid> tzviya: Maybe end the sentence earlier
<wendyreid> npd: This seems more confusing
<plh> ack ted
<wendyreid> TallTed: Threw a small tweak in
<wendyreid> ... "or by the chair"
<plh> q?
<plh> ack TallTed
<wendyreid> florian: I think it's friendlier, but makes no difference to the process
<wendyreid> ... maybe that is making the process longer, or friendlier
<wendyreid> TallTed: Here is where I don't think 4 words adds to the length
<wendyreid> plh: Ok, are we ok with the new wording?
<wendyreid> florian: works for me
<npd> I can live with that
<wendyreid> plh: Ok! Merge once the tweak is added
<wendyreid> npd: It would be good to have more in the guide, are we tracking issues for the guide
<wendyreid> plh: We agreed to create an issue to add the link for the documentation, we can include that, we're aware of everything needing to go in the documentation
<wendyreid> florian: This is not the guide CG, the guide is mostly done by the team, but in the open
<wendyreid> plh: If anyone here would like to review the guide, it is more than welcome
<npd> sure, I just wanted to have a place to track suggestions and contributions, even if a separate group (the Team) handles it
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/703
<wendyreid> plh: To 703
<wendyreid> florian: This one is a little longer
<wendyreid> ... also backed by an AB resolution
<wendyreid> ... how to deal with hypothetical cases of running into a formal objection where it's obvious to everyone what needs to be done
<wendyreid> ... do we need to do the whole process of forming a council to just do the obvious thing
<wendyreid> ... this forms a shortcut
<plh> q+
<wendyreid> ... when the team writes the report, it can provide a recommendation, the new thing is if the entire possible council agrees on the recommendation, we go ahead with that
<wendyreid> ... if there is any opposition, we proceed with the council
<wendyreid> ... aside from people renouncing their seat, where people are forbidden from participating in the council for legal reasons or ther
<wendyreid> ... questions?
<TallTed> q+
<plh> ack TallTed
<plh> ack plh
<wendyreid> plh: The comment is on Github, can we please drop the word "absurd"
<wendyreid> TallTed: Added a comment to address that
<wendyreid> plh: Florian are you ok to change that?
<wendyreid> florian: Yes
<wendyreid> plh: If we take Ted's suggestion in, any other objections to merge 703?
<wendyreid> ... then we can reuse precedence
<npd> thanks for addressing that wording change, +1
<wendyreid> florian: I don't suspect this will be used often, but will save time in the cases it applies to
<wendyreid> plh: going going merge!
<wendyreid> ... 704
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/704
<wendyreid> florian: This one is probably more subtle
<wendyreid> ... the process has had this notion of a memorandum of understanding
<wendyreid> ... a contract-like thing
<wendyreid> ... it's a particular class of agreements between W3C and others to understand what W3C does
<wendyreid> ... when we partner up with groups like WHATWG, or merge with IDPF
<wendyreid> ... we make contract-like things, MoUs, this was previously dealt with by the director
<plh> q+
<wendyreid> ... we'd like to move this to the team and CEO, but when they want to sign such a thing
<wendyreid> ... they need to get the approval of the AC
<wendyreid> ... and the AC could appeal
<wendyreid> ... mightthat interfere with the role of the board?
<wendyreid> ... this PR tries to clarify that the team may negotiate these things, and AC review can happen, AC can appeal, this can be overridden by the board
<wendyreid> ... the team on its own cannot sign an MoU where a successful appeal is present, but the Board can
<wendyreid> ... especially in cases of urgency
<wendyreid> ... if something happens where the membership and Board disagree, Board overrides
<wendyreid> plh: This is the first time in the process where we link to the board?
<npd> q+
<wendyreid> florian: No, there's another mention for AB liaisons
<wendyreid> plh: I think the team and the board need to figure this out
<florian> q+
<wendyreid> ... my concern is that this is a slippery slope
<wendyreid> ... encourage the board to step into process
<wendyreid> ... it could bite us
<plh> ack plh
<plh> ack npd
<wendyreid> npd: I got on the queue to talk separately about the review and appeal process could be a delay
<wendyreid> ... I don't know every case of an MoU
<florian> q+
<wendyreid> ... but if the team needs to operate using these MoUs, with the review process it might prevent signing
<wendyreid> plh: This doesn't change having an AC review and appeal
<plh> ack florian
<wendyreid> florian: Yes, you're right npd that is why this is a SHOULD not MUST. Sometimes there is a need for a rush and there is the possibility of that
<wendyreid> ... to PLH's point, we might want counsel advice
<wendyreid> ... the process is a normative reference of the member agreement
<wendyreid> ... it has contractural value
<wendyreid> ... the board can weigh that in, the Board could instruct the team to sign a contract that fails appeal
<wendyreid> ... but it might violate the member agreement without a clause like this
<wendyreid> ... in every case they can do it, but one involves contract violation
<wendyreid> plh: I worry we're opening pandora's box
<wendyreid> florian: My alternative worry, the Board may say contracts are not a concern of the AC
<wendyreid> ... the MoU about the WHATWG should not be a board matter, for example
<wendyreid> plh: I was talking with dsinger about this, difference between an MoU and an agreement
<wendyreid> ... not going to object to the changes
<wendyreid> ... but not surprised when the board asks for revisions
<wendyreid> florian: We should inform the board of this change
<wendyreid> ... if it seems reasonable to us, we should get their feedback
<wendyreid> plh: Action item to review with the board
<npd> would we want to say the Board can override in cases of operational necessity for the organization?
<wendyreid> ... let's not merge this one today
<wendyreid> ... let's get feedback from at least the interim CEO
<wendyreid> florian: Note to the AB chairs, this is also tagged as getting AB feedback
<wendyreid> ... if we think its plausible, we should get feedback
<wendyreid> plh: Let's move on
<wendyreid> ... we are now on 705
<plh> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/705
<wendyreid> florian: Proposed by Ian Jacobs, per the membership agreement but a phrase that doesn't live in the agreement
<wendyreid> ... it's more accurate to say per the IPR process
<wendyreid> ... we can drop the reference, it can be found in the document we are actually pointing to
<wendyreid> plh: Any objection? Ok let's merge 705
<wendyreid> ... last one for today
<plh> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/706
<wendyreid> ... 706
<wendyreid> florian: Very editorial
<wendyreid> ... we had a sentence at the beginning of the council composition
<wendyreid> ... more of the sentence was dedicated to exceptions than the detail
<wendyreid> ... this PR modifies that to make it easier to read
<wendyreid> ... we have been iterating on variants
<wendyreid> plh: There were some suggestions
<wendyreid> florian: I looked at some and agree with some parts
<wendyreid> plh: What's the proposal at this point?
<wendyreid> florian: I agree with parts
<wendyreid> plh: I don't see a change in the proposal
<wendyreid> florian: I am asking for help
<wendyreid> ... I was fine with the initial one, but Elika had comments
<wendyreid> ... if it's necessary to modify the langage of the section
<wendyreid> ... suggestion to say members of the council are selected from, suggests a large pool
<wendyreid> ... but then we are back
<wendyreid> ... maybe we can keep the long one, or short with "each" instead of "the"
<wendyreid> plh: Let's not take this PR, look at Ted's issue (710), and address this as part of that
<wendyreid> florian: We don't seem to have reached consensus
<wendyreid> plh: We are not merging 706
<wendyreid> ... do we want to send this for review?
<wendyreid> ... I am reluctant to make changes while the AB is reviewing it
<wendyreid> ... understanding we won't allow ourselves to make substantive changes during AB review
<npd> q+ on next steps for review
<wendyreid> ... are there any other issues we think need addressing?
<wendyreid> ... if no, let's start the 2 week review period
<wendyreid> ... decide in 2 weeks to send to AB
<plh> ack npd
<Zakim> npd, you wanted to comment on next steps for review
<wendyreid> npd: That answers my question, we're taking a hard look before AB or AC?
<wendyreid> plh: The way we're going to work, we're working under the authority of the AB for this editorial work, in order for us to make decisions, we need 2 weeks to review the document and the issues, let's move forward
<wendyreid> ... we've been asking people to review for a few weeks, but today I am asking formally for 2 weeks of review
<florian> q+
<wendyreid> ... to send to the AB
<wendyreid> ... once we make the decision, the bar to accept a change is much higher
<wendyreid> florian: We can open a new branch
<wendyreid> plh: For any changes beyond editorial, we would need to cycle back
<plh> ack florian
<wendyreid> npd: Process CG will have it's last review now, but AB can contribute
<wendyreid> florian: Since we didn't merge the PR on MoU's, we could say "we're done aside from this PR"
<wendyreid> ... then ask for advice
<wendyreid> plh: I'm fine with asking as part of that
<wendyreid> ... it's fair game
<wendyreid> ... so you've been warned, please review the process and issues in the next 2 weeks
<wendyreid> ... congrats everyone
<wendyreid> ... lot of issues on the process, plenty to do
<florian> q+
<wendyreid> ... pressure to dive into other topics
<wendyreid> npd: Can't stop people from commenting
<plh> ack florian
<wendyreid> florian: I want to switch topics for the last 2 minutes
<wendyreid> ... introduce the council/guide review

w3c / process

Simplify phrasing about council composition #706