W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > October 2011

Draft minutes from today's teleconference

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:52 -0400
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1319550652.2178.94615.camel@dbooth-laptop>
and also below in plain text.



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -


25 Oct 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-irc


          AlanR, Nathan, DBooth, Jonathan_Rees

          Jonathan Rees



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Wrapping up
     * [5]Summary of Action Items

   <jar> looking at some old stuff, like

      [6] http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage

   <jar> and [7]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-afternoon-minutes

      [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-afternoon-minutes

Wrapping up

   jar: We should write down what we've done and let other things go
   for the next generation.
   ... want to work out process for wrapping up. i should be able to
   work on it later in Nov and Dec.

   dbooth: you're proposing that we document what we've done and wrap

   jar: y, write up what happened and declare victory.
   ... I don't see anything changing that will make the group more
   effective. i'm volunteering to write something, and then we need to
   figure out who's going to be a signer to the report.
   ... and disagreements can be noted in the report also.

   <jar> ack [IPcaller]

   nathan: i agree on this approach. i think everything that could be
   discussed -- all options. So the best we can do is put it together
   in a report w steps that have been taken, then perhaps another
   document with our own opinions.

   alan: doc should be consensus view, with all views represented.

   <jar> alanr: one doc, consensus view (including statements of the
   form "A thinks X, but B disagrees" but not limited to non-consensus)

   dbooth: I think one document would make more sense than more than

   <jar> alanr: work it through on a wiki, as OWL did

   jar: I'll produce a draft, then if someone else agrees then they
   sign, if the disagree than they may change something or note

   <jar> [8]http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

      [8] http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

   dbooth: I agree a wiki would be more efficient and would encourage
   more participation.

   <jar> alanr: collect the best of the email exchanges

   alan: good first start would be collect the best email

   <nathan> we should identify them..

   dbooth: so the model would be that the document would reflect
   consensus views and differeing views.

   <jar> i think there are 3 things. 1. consensus, 2, set of differing
   views, 3. single views that others don't agree or disagree

   nathan: should identify all the views and see which ones are in
   agreement and disagreement quickly.

   <jar> queue please

   <jar> 3 voices talking at once

   <nathan> yes - what is our job, to come to a consensus, or to
   document all views?

   alan: whether something is consensus or dissent is irrelevant if it
   is documentary. We merely need to agree on well-representing the

   <nathan> +1 alan

   <jar> whether it's consensus or not is not so important when it's a
   documentary. important thing is representation

   dbooth: sounds good.

   <nathan> imho - [9]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options and
   [10]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements both document
   things rather well

      [9] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options
     [10] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements

   jar: looking through email threads anyone can do.

   <jar> I started [11]http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport a while
   back… use that as the root and make changes

     [11] http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

   nathan: I shall try to make a start going through email, document,
   and put things together for the report for the next couple weeks.

   <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask who will start a wiki page?

   <nathan> [12]http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

     [12] http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

   <jar> aim for draft worth reading on 12/21

   jar: TAG mtg Jan 4. would be nice to have something 2 weeks before
   that (Dec 21).
   ... re deliverables, some of the more important things i've learned
   during this group are in the documents I've given out in the past.


     [13] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/

   <jar> my favorite outcomes if awwsws: (1)

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html


     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/

   <nathan> likewise (1) referential use

   <jar> (2) that one, ir/latest/

   <nathan> also two wiki pages are most useful
   (HttpRange14Requirements, HttpRange14Options)

   <nathan> [16]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements

     [16] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements

   jar: since those docs do not command consensus in the group, i'll
   have to say theyre my personal views

   nathan: do we have consensus on the httpRagne-14 requirements?

   jar: i haveen't shown that page to anyway -- only you.
   ... we don't have a clean dividing line between this group's work
   and the TAG group. Task Groups are not supposed to produce normative

   alan: they can't.

   dbooth: but anybody can make proposals, including a task group.
   ... i thinkn it's a matter of making the doc status very clear

   jar: but it's moot because we don't have agreement on any SHOULDs

   alan: this is easy to deal with. if there are sections that propose
   normative words, then they get quoted.

   jar: want to avoid the appearance of important work going on behind
   closed doors.

   <jar> alanr: Easy to deal with. If some of the views are phrased
   normatively, then just quote them "Joe thinks everyone SHOULD do x"

   <jar> … no boilerplate

   alan: I agree it should be clear from the status. Don't use the
   boiler plate 2119 of what these words mean, etc.

   <nathan> documenting what can be done != recommending what to do

   jar: I do all this work, and it could be couched as AWWSW and it
   could be TAG, and I don't know how to draw the line.

   alan: it's your line to draw.

   <nathan> alan, +1


   <jar> alanr: There was this discussion, then JAR went off and made
   this doc for the TAG

   dbooth: What else should we cover today?

   jar: if anything, trying to set the scope better. what should not go
   it? what should we not forget to put in?

   <jar> alanr: The scope is determined by email & wiki

   alan: any work i would do would be driven by the email stream, the
   log, etc. Gathering links to those. That should clearly say what the
   scope is. There shouldn't be any new subject matter that isn't
   recorded in these forums.

   <jar> [17]http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options

     [17] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options

   jar: I've been doing httpRange-14 requirments drafting. Trying to
   get to ... bothered by HTML5 change request. They have a process for
   making changes to teh draft. Someone files a bug, someone makes a
   change request, and then something happens.
   ... If you apply that process to httpRange-14, we need to rake in
   change requests, each w a champion, and then see which one wins.

   alan: But we haven't done that, and we're reporting what we've done,
   so that's out of scope.

   jar: I agree, just alerting you to what i've been doing, as one of
   my TAG actions.

   <jar> alanr: Amending hr14a is out of scope for awwsw

   <jar> jar: it's for tag, I thought people on this call ought to know

   dbooth: i look forward to reading it.

   <jar> who's going to review the email stream? … just nathan or
   others as well?

   dbooth: maybe we should all look through email and pick out things
   we think are important.

   alan: redundant for us all to look exhaustively at email.

   jar: divide and conquer by year?
   ... 4 people and 4 years.

   <jar> 2008, 9, 10, 11

   dbooth: I'm game for that if others want to do that.

   <jar> alanr: first pass by nathan r?

   alan: i heard nathan say he'll go through them anyway. he should do
   first pass, then we'll review and comment.

   nathan: okay

   <jar> sounds good

   dbooth: great

   <nathan> cool - good meeting, thanks :)


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.136
    ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/10/25 13:42:37 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43
Check for newer version at [20]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth
Inferring Scribes: dbooth
Default Present: +1.617.581.aaaa, jar, dbooth, +1.716.810.aabb, +1.716.
810.aacc, nathan
Present: AlanR Nathan DBooth Jonathan_Rees
Got date from IRC log name: 25 Oct 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-minutes.ht
People with action items:

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-minutes.html

   End of [22]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 13:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC