See also: IRC log
waiting for other participants to join
<wycats_> Regrets I am on an airplane
<slightlyoff> I worry that we're losing momentum = (
<scribe> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TAG/Planning/2013-06-27-TC
<ht> I linked the minutes from the wiki and homepages
dka: did people look at the
minutes?
... could have some more link to different materials, but looks
ok to me
<dka> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/05/29-agenda.html
<slightlyoff> SGTM
dka: we will plan call agenda by putting then in the wiki
there is a new scribe page: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TAG/Planning/scribe-rota
<slightlyoff> looks good, thanks for putting that rotation together
dka: of course, comments welcome
plinss: looks good so far
<dka> https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-spec-text
please remember to do readme files
<slightlyoff> what's the URL of the blog?
yves: the TAG blog is open to all TAG members, and not restricted to "the voice of the TAG" (unless we decide to)
<slightlyoff> and how does one get access?
dka: we also have the keys of @w3ctag
<slightlyoff> https://www.w3.org/blog/TAG/wp-login.php
<slightlyoff> exciting that we have it!
dka: we also have the keys of @w3ctag
dka: we have two candidates running
you can look at their statements
election open until july 16
marcos: should we encourage them to post an extended statement?
dka: see https://www.w3.org/2013/06/17-tag-nominations.html
<dka> http://chaals.ya.ru/replies.xml?item_no=9
<dka> http://twirl-team.ya.ru/replies.xml?item_no=1036
plinss: we are working to get the TAG home page redesigned with some help
plinss: we need it to be modern
enough, but the main goal is to know what we want there.
... there is the style design and information design, we need
to work on both
<slightlyoff> plinss: that sounds good to me, outlining the IA first
dka: how it impacts what we do?
slightlyoff: it is in the same line with what we did in London
how we are reorganize so that we can track specs to organize reviews
for APIs
dka: we have actions to reach out to different groups
yves: for WebApps, see http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#API_Specifications to get the list and status of publications
slightlyoff: is there a way to better coordinate spec review?
dka: we can use the irc channel as way to keep in touch
<ht> -1 to IRC -- I'm off- and on-line too often
<slightlyoff> SGTM++
marcos: would like to use this as issues in github
<slightlyoff> ht: are you using irccloud? it's ace
slightlyoff: we need to have a better view of all the groups that are working on APIs
<marcosc> http://www.w3.org/TR/
<slightlyoff> marcosc: right, but I don't know how to share or link to any of the views of that
marcos: the TR page have a list of all specs, nto perfect but at least you have the whole list
<marcosc> slightlyoff: off, yeah... I know... I was trying to find that too :(
dka: we don't need to look at everything done at W3C
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to argue for a non-exclusive view of our scope
<slightlyoff> dka: FWIW, I didn't ask the TAG to spend any time on workshops
<slightlyoff> one last time; I don't htink this is a TAG item, I didn't bring it up, and I'd like to put it down = )
<slightlyoff> ACTION: item to dka and slightlyoff to eat, near each other, soon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'item'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/users>.
<dka> Yves: referencing Robin's email - is there a way to have a better way to state that specs for example are partially stable and partially experimental...
<dka> Dan: should we make a recommendation?
<dka> Yves: I was thinking - do people in the Tag have opinions / experience in this area and if so should we make a recommendation back?
<dka> Marcos: This is only a big deal on the w3c side. My recommendation is to keep the current model and allow specs to proceed down recommendation track so long as referenced specs remain stable...
<dka> Marcos: could allow sections to be marked for stability.
<dka> Yves: the way you can make assessments of stability of parts of the specifications could be done by marking it in some way...
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to point to the QA document about this
<dka> Henry: The problem is that there's so much inertia in this space. What was just suggested required a change to the process. W3C process is extremely resistant to change.
<dka> … it was absorb lots of TAG energy to get the AB to take this up.
<dka> … not convinced that the situation we're in is broken enough to warrant taking that effort on.
<dka> … reluctant to take this on.
<dka> [discussion of the director overriding process]
<dka> Marcos: It's kind of broken but if someone wants to move a spec forward it will move forward...
<dka> Yves: one way to work around the issue is to spliit a spec into small chunks which are linked - and this is a mess for implementers.
<dka> … modularity might be a better way to work around that.
<ht> This doc: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#reference has a lot of good analysis/recommendations
<ht> We had an action to try to come up with a better story, which stalled two years ago: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/303
<slightlyoff> I don't have an opinon
<slightlyoff> +1
<scribe> ACTION: dka to send an email to the AB telling them that we are ready to give input on modularization and references if they work on that topic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-820 - Send an email to the AB telling them that we are ready to give input on modularization and references if they work on that topic [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2013-07-04].
<dka> https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch
ht: worked on a new version of webarch using github
<ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jun/0023.html
worked on a draft new abstract
ht: there was a bipolar reaction to it, enthusiasm and anger/hate (scribe paraphrasing a bit)
TBL and I and some other people think the original AWWW document was not served by some terminology inherited from rfc2616
ht: at the f2f, we decided we _might_ take it on
ht: we put it on github so that people can edit it and do pull requests on it
<slightlyoff> ht: that sounds good
<ht> I agree with Marcos that with hindsight it was a mistake to ask for feedback so soon
marcos: "editing the bible" scares people, we need other ways to make progress
discussion about private repos and StO
<slightlyoff> to clarify, they only START private
<slightlyoff> and go public once things are "more solid"
<slightlyoff> but this is a much different product -- people think they already understand it
<slightlyoff> speaking of social pressure....what's next for API review? bugs in the repo marcos sets up?
<marcosc> https://github.com/w3ctag/extending-html-responsibly/blob/master/RICG-recs/ricg.md
<slightlyoff> that's a good point...wycats_ and I need to do that this week
<slightlyoff> I agree with these
<slightlyoff> +1
<slightlyoff> nice work, marcosc
ht: speaking from somebody outside the community, it would be helpful to include definitions, or examples (eg: for polyfills)
marcos: there are also prollyfills
<dka> PROPOSED RESOLVED: Marcos to send https://github.com/w3ctag/extending-html-responsibly/blob/master/RICG-recs/ricg.md to RICG as feedback.
<ht> +1
<dka> RESOLUTION: Marcos to send https://github.com/w3ctag/extending-html-responsibly/blob/master/RICG-recs/ricg.md to RICG as feedback.
dka: there is no pb to have TC39 members invited at TPAC
<slightlyoff> I don't know either, but i feel like we should handle this urgently
<slightlyoff> ht: it's easy...es-discuss is open
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to suggest we should ask TC39!
ht: we should ask TC39
slightlyoff: I don't know what to do, asking TC39 is good but giving then too many choices might be an issue
<slightlyoff> ht: I like that a lot
<slightlyoff> ht: that's good framing
<dka> Option 1: A hosted meeting at TPAC either Monday-Tusday or Thursday-Friday if TPAC with understanding that others can join as guests and you can join others as guests...
ht: difference is being like a regular WG or less constrained like the TAG
<slightlyoff> can we iterate on this quickly on the mailing list?
<dka> Option: 2: a less constrained invitation as guests of the TAG?
<slightlyoff> I'd like to make sure wycats_ has input
<slightlyoff> dka: yes, I think so
<slightlyoff> there's also an internal TC39 reflector that I can post to
<slightlyoff> but I think public-script-coord is a good way to start
<slightlyoff> yes, I can
<scribe> ACTION: dka to talk to Jeff about TC39 to TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-821 - Talk to Jeff about TC39 to TPAC [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2013-07-04].
<scribe> ACTION: slightlyoff to send email to public-script-coord about TC39 and TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-tagmem-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-822 - Send email to public-script-coord about TC39 and TPAC [on Alex Russell - due 2013-07-04].
dka: don't hesitate to bring the chairs feedback if we miss something
next call will be in two weeks: july 11th
ADJOURNED