W3C Forms teleconference November 21, 2007

* Present

Blake Jones, ViewPlus/DAISY
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Shane McCarron, Aptest
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM

* Agenda

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0079.html

* Previous Minutes

* XForms 1.1 CR Transition

John Boyer: The call is later today.
Steven Pemberton: Zakim will allocate a space for us.

* XForms 1.0 Basic

Leigh Klotz: I'm still waiting for the implementation report from PicoForms.
John Boyer: Can you ask Mark?

Action 2007-11-21.1: Leigh Klotz to ask Mark Seaborne for XForms 1.0 Basic implementation report status.

* Backplane

* Action Items

John Boyer: Can Steven and Mark Birbeck look at their action items lists?

* Completion of action for issue 106, input mode

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Oct/0071.html

John Boyer: We still need text from Martin Düerst. I sent mail saying it's informative and we'd still like the text at any time. He didn't respond.
John Boyer: Steven, you said some folks had observed that we don't have a completely elaborated example in that appendix. We can add it once we get the updated appendix. There's been no email to forms-editor about that issue.
Steven Pemberton: Someone forwarded me a message from someone else about it. How should we treat it? I think adding it to the issues list as a CR comment is an excellent suggestion. The person who sent it is currently implementing inputmode.

Action 2007-11-21.2: John Boyer to add example for inputmode to issues list (received indirectly as comment but after last call deadline) and to contact Yam.

* Attendance, good standing, future meetings

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0075.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0043.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0049.html

John Boyer: I got some feedback. Nick?
Nick van: The problem of reducing the F2F meetings for my company is that the F2F gives us the most benefit and the interesting discussions happen there. In this proposal we introduce two weekly teleconferences and it's really hard for my employer to ensure that I'm available at those two different hours. We also have some experience where lowering the number of F2F meetings doesn't help. The problems are funding or other reasons. When I have a phone call I do it at work and then have to drive back home and home at 8pm and leave at 7am, so if it's every week two days, it's quite a commitment.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] +1 on the value of FtFs
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [irc] +1 John:[irc] +1
Charlie Wiecha: [irc] +1
Roger Pérez: [irc] +2 (Rafa and me)
Keith Wells: [irc] +1
Uli Lissé: [irc] +1 from me too http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0081.html
Nick van: I spoke to Mark Seaborne and he said that lowering the number of meetings would not ensure that he could come to the all. He said he can't attend both phone calls.
Charlie Wiecha: Whatever n is, the suggestion is always n-1.
John Boyer: So we should increase n?
Nick van: ...
John Boyer: The official standing is every 2 out of 3, but different people have different things that come up.
Leigh Klotz: In my company, there are predicable time when we can't travel due to budget restrictions. In particular, fourth quarter is never a time to be able to travel.
Nick van: [irc] but the TPAC is in the 4th q
Steven Pemberton: You should tell your AC rep that then because the TPAC is then.

John Boyer: A massive reduction of F2F doesn't seem like a good idea. Sebastian has proposed perhaps three per year and a longer telecon. What do people think about that then?
Steven Pemberton: If you can't come to the meeting, at least come to the IRC and if you can the telecon. If the IRC reflects the meeting you can get a lot of work done.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: My observation is that 60 minutes is too short. The HCG WG has 90 minutes; that seems to work pretty well. At 60 minutes we have interesting issues and they get cut off. Some people could leave at the hour. Then have three F2F. Or I guess four F2F.
John Boyer: I like that best. Two calls a week is a big change and I was worried about it. Let's start with the longer telecon idea. What about the Europeans?
Steven Pemberton: I can't make it later, but XHTML2 is moving an hour earlier.
Mark Birbeck: Why doesn't that help?
John Boyer: If the half hour went later, that would be...I wonder if we moved back over to Thursdays? The HTML call was in the way.
Steven Pemberton: We have a task force WG then.
Mark Birbeck: How about 1/4 hour earlier and later.
John Boyer: Does that eat into HTML time?
Steven Pemberton: No, we are moving.
Leigh Klotz: I could handle 15 minutes earlier.
Charlie Wiecha: For me too. I have a 10:00am meeting.
John Boyer: Is there anyone on the call who doesn't like making that amendment in the new year?
Steven Pemberton: Starting a quarter hour earlier and ending a quarter hour later.
Leigh Klotz: I'll only take minutes for the first hour.
John Boyer: OK, that will give us exercise on the list.

Resolution 2007-11-21.1: We go to 90 minute calls, starting 15 minutes earlier and ending 15 minutes later, in January.

John Boyer: How about longer F2F meetings.
Charlie Wiecha: An extra day.
Mark Birbeck: ...
John Boyer: The downside is one of our F2F meetings needs to be at the tech plenary.
Leigh Klotz: It's always short there. Focus on trying to meet with other groups and work issues at the other meetings.
John Boyer: Can we change the meeting in North Carolina?
Keith Wells: The 4th 5th and 6th of February?
John Boyer: Would it tough to get an extra day?
Keith Wells: Yes.
John Boyer: Ok, so an extra day in Amsterdam?
Steven Pemberton: That's not hard.
John Boyer: So generally a four-day meeting on the non tech-plenary meetings?
John Boyer: Some plus ones are showing up.
Charlie Wiecha: So Steven is obviously going to the Tech Plenary.
John Boyer: I can't get out of it either.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: So now we are voting at more days per meeting, not less meetings.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] If it's 3*4 days then +1 for me.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: At the TPAC?
Steven Pemberton: We can do more than two days only by working on the weekend.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: So two meetings at 4 days and then 2 at the TPAC.
Mark Birbeck: We also talked about imaginative alternatives to meetings, such as working days. As Sebastian said, we have the same number of physical meetings. So maybe have one of the meetings be different.
John Boyer: Can we push Amsterdam out a bit?
Nick van: Then we lose Victoria.
John Boyer: True. Five days in Amsterdam?
Leigh Klotz: Five days seems too long; with 4 we can change the way we discuss things and make better progress.
John Boyer: The week before the TPAC that Thursday and Friday might be good days to have a virtual F2F. Then four days for the other two. We are still in charter as well. Does this sound like a plan?
Steven Pemberton: To summarize: 1.5 hour phone calls, two four-day meetings, and two virtual days the week before TPAC and two days at TPAC.
John Boyer: [irc] Generally, 3 meetings of 4 days in total. The last of the year would be the TPAC. Two virtual days before the TPAC and then 2 days at the TPAC for those who can make it
John Boyer: And this takes effect with the Amsterdam F2F. The next one after Amsterdam will be half virtual/half TPAC. So where should the second F2F of the year be? Would we loose Victoria? We'd have to do Victoria after the TPAC.
John Boyer: Would you still host if we move in June?
Steven Pemberton: In principle, yes. Hotels would be at a premium that month, though. Far enough in advance it shouldn't be a problem. Book early though.
John Boyer: Any constraints on which week in June, 2008?
Mark Birbeck: Not the first week.
John Boyer: June 9-12, 2008 in Amsterdam.
John Boyer: Ok, so we have committed to more work now and less travel. Let's call this resolved.

Resolution 2007-11-21.2: We resolve to have three F2F meetings per year, four days per meeting, and that the final meeting is half-virtual, half-TPAC.

Resolution 2007-11-21.3: F2F in June 9-12, 2008 in Amsterdam.

* Editors for Future Specs

John Boyer: We need editors for XForms 1.2 and XForms 2.0 in parallel. Nick, how about you being an editor for 1.2.
Nick van: I can commit, yes. I discussed it in my company.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] Excellent.
John Boyer: Is there anyone on the call who is uncomfortable with that?
Steven Pemberton: Delighted!
John Boyer: Are there others?
Leigh Klotz: I'll be glad to help out on one of them, whichever needs help.
John Boyer: Which one?
Leigh Klotz: Whichever; I don't want to be in charge though.
Mark Birbeck: When RDFa is done I'll have more spec time.
John Boyer: Anybody else for 2.0?
Nick van: [irc] John you are the 2.0 master
Keith Wells: [irc] +1 for John
Mark Birbeck: The more modular we can make it the better; CURiES, @role, etc. If we have modules maybe we won't have too sharp a distinction between 1.2 and 2.0 anyway.
Charlie Wiecha: [irc] +1 for modules

John Boyer: Next week let's talk about future specifications. Bug reports for 15 minutes at most for the rest of the year. We'll report on the transition.

* IRC Minutes

http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-forms-minutes.html

* Meeting Ends