W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > November 2012

RE: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:25:18 +0100
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
CC: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Message-ID: <076ED1F6CB375B4BB5CAE787369136070413450351DD@CROEXCFWP04.gemalto.com>
Mike,

Some people will be attending the 2 calls, and the number of contributions does not justify at the moment that we meet every week. The mailing list will anyway stay active and I will deliver regularly my 'take away'. 

Decision about meetings will be made by Thursday, I am expecting other's opinion, but it will be implemented for next week. I will send outlook invitation to try to help outlook users - for the others, just ignore it. 

Regards,
Virginie

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] 
Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2012 02:00
To: GALINDO Virginie; Ryan Sleevi; Harry Halpin
Cc: Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

I would rather that we have a call every week, than every other week - particularly if one of them will be at 7am Pacific time.  Effectively that would mean that I would likely be only able to join a call every four weeks - which is too long a time span.

Will the next call be next Monday at the regular time (Noon pacific)?  I'd like to get in in my calendar.

				Thanks,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: GALINDO Virginie [mailto:Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:07 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Harry Halpin
Cc: Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

Hi all,

Sorry if I was not clear : I mean one call every two weeks, with alternate timing. 
Which would give, for instance :  Week 1 : call @20:00 UTC, Week 2 : no call, Week 3 call @15:00 UTC, Week 4 : no call...

To answer Ryan's comment : we can always cancel the call if there is nothing to discuss, or if there is no attendee on the call - up to now we used to have 10 to 15 participants, which demonstrates an interest, I guess. Personally, I do believe that there is value to have live discussions among participants. 

Regards,
Virginie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
Sent: lundi 19 novembre 2012 21:55
To: Harry Halpin
Cc: Mark Watson; GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 06:14 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> Virginie,
>
> Do you really mean bi-weekly? i.e. once every two weeks? Or do you 
> mean weekly with alternating times.
>
> The proposal is biweekly with alternating times, but both meetings 
> would have decision-making power. HOWEVER, this would mean that the 
> chair has to attend both meetings (with W3C staff) and that proposals 
> need to be made to the mailing list ahead of time for both meetings, 
> so both meetings can have consensus at the meeting.
>
>    cheers,
>       harry
>
>
> My vote is neutral, because I would have to leave the 7am PST calls at 7.45.
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:28 AM, "GALINDO Virginie"
> <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Just to make things clear, there will be no conference call today.
>
>
>
> You may take this free time to consider answering the proposed 
> resolution to have our calls on a bi-weekly basis with
>
> -          one Monday @20:00 UTC (and not 18:00 UTC as stated in my previous
> email)
>
> -          one Monday @15:00 UTC
>
>
>
> If resolution is accepted, we will start next week with this timing. 
> Thanks for indicating your support with +1 or -1.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Virginie
>
>
>
>

Can we just leave consensus to the mailing list, and use the phone meetings to work out details / answer questions / review the spec?

Given that the past few issues on consensus have ended up spanning several phone calls, due to various participants being unable to attend phone/in-person meetings, it seems simpler to use the phone for high-bandwidth discussions that result in proposals then directed to the mail list for final consensus.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 09:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:14 UTC