[Minutes] SG Minutes 2020-07-21

[foolip]

Present: @dbaron, @foolip, @othermaciej (@travisleithead OOO)

What to do with previously-contributed work under pseudonyms?

@foolip: After discussing with @domenic last week, a proposed solution is to just acknowledge it was a mistake in our process, to unverify these individuals, but to leave the contributions in.
@dbaron: That’s reasonable, except @payingattention who commented in the issue that it is their real name.
@foolip: Yeah, we shouldn’t unverify in that case.
@dbaron: Seems reasonable then.
@othermaciej: Seems OK, it wouldn’t seem productive to rip these changes out, it's been a long time for some of them. Would even be comfortable delegating to editors.
@foolip: @domenic has already checked what the contributions were, all small. I’ll write up the suggestion tomorrow.

Define the policy update process

@othermaciej: I think at one point a suggestion was to have 45 days notice period for all policy changes. One suggestion was to merge and just have an “effective date” on the page that might be in the future. But we could leave PRs open for 45 days. We could just treat IPR policy changes differently, which we could document in the SG policy.
@dbaron: It’s not clear we’ll always want to hold to 45 days, so we could say that we generally do it, and call out IPR policy changes.
@othermaciej: Wouldn’t want to hold 45 days for trivial changes. IPR policy is probably the most obvious, but maybe also workstream policy if we change how workstreams operate would also be good to have a notice period for.
@foolip: So we say that sometimes we wait 45 days, and soft promise that for important IPR policy changes we do that. Next steps to write up on the issue what our rough consensus is?
@othermaciej: I can do it: #116 (comment)

[payingattention]

@\dbaron: That’s reasonable, except the one person who commented in the issue that it is their real name.

Can you attach mention of "the one person", with attribution to my real username (and maybe my comment ID linked response before: "github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/101#issuecomment-660480695") please. Then again that's an official burden, me making you hit edit for a correction to just attribute a name (I should comment instead?).

Or is it okay I mention myself here as "the one person" not quite named but distinguished? :∫ I am not even given attrib for how I wrote "137" in my post and then /issues/137 became the URL hex slug. My name got attention, I deserve (to ask for the dignity of) quotes or an at-sign?

[foolip]

@payingattention these are meeting minutes and reflect what was said, but I've replaced "the one person" with your user name as it preserves the same meaning, and indeed it's ambiguous since there were not one but two cases like this showing up in the thread.

[payingattention]

@payingattention these are meeting minutes and reflect what was said, but I've replaced "the one person" with your user name as it preserves the same meaning, and indeed it's ambiguous since there were not one but two cases like this showing up in the thread.

I want to keep/preserve what was said. I said "replace" in an earlier edit, I meant "add"/"append". How did I say that word and not the other word, ack.

Damn now I will have to ask you to please correct, just one final time, so it shows the original version with the additional information done append-only. I know we can check the /revisions (which requires additional literacy, some friends will not be able to read that far, and not to mention Git Comment History is proprietary source so Google may have trouble to crawl edits), yet so please ideally/properly make the main entry as it was, just append mention to the log.

I only request my mention/citation information be appended, please. (I did not mean to nearly strike the record, appending is the safer, stabler, securer method.)

For the greater social memory issue, that is terrible that my "smart" citation/mention suggestion deformed the entire chat line of another human being, that "@\dbaron" one. That "db" individual (we have not spoken, I do not harbor any feelings for them personally) did not use my name and I appreciate that could have been proper form for some reasons. I do not know if I should like that "@dbaron" (who could have just knocked on my chat door/icon and asked if to use my name in official proceedings you know, I may not qualify for a knock but still a point) but I believe to read me and my name is as equally important as their "full speech"/"first words"/original line.

[payingattention]

Damn github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/137/revisions[0][1] does not even work.

Manually coding (or pressing the 10 letters for the) URL slug as /revisions works for gists.github.com/revisions.

Where are standards for that?