- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:52 -0400
- To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-minutes.html
and also below in plain text.
------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
AWWSW
25 Oct 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-irc
Attendees
Present
AlanR, Nathan, DBooth, Jonathan_Rees
Regrets
Chair
Jonathan Rees
Scribe
dbooth
Contents
* [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
[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
up?
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
one.
<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
differences
<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
views.
<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/
[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
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/
[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
documents.
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
anyway.
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
+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 :)
ADJOURNED
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
/scribe/
[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
ml
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.
http://dbooth.org/
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