See also: IRC log
<Bob> scribe: Greg Carpenter
<scribe> scribenick: GregC
The agenda is available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0045.html
add "unilateral wihtdrawal of issues" to the agenda
People need more time to read and approve minutes from f2f
bob: I wont be able chair
... should we cancel or have Yves chair?
Meeting will be held as planned, Yves will chair
bob: Editors should use CVS to avoid "lost updates" from multiple editors
Editors need to get Public Keys if they don't already have one
bob: first drafts in W3C format with no changes
... who will produce which first working drafts and when
dug: are there conversion tools and should we use them?
asir: conversion tools are avialable but still require significant manual effort
<dug> yves which doc were you thinking of?
Yves: Perhaps some subnissions are already up to spec and will be easier?
bob: In two weeks time, all submitted specs will be converted and available in xml spec format
... specs may come out independently during that time
... people will be given adequate time to review
<scribe> ACTION: editors will have first Public Working drafts available on or before Feb 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<asir> Yves - you probably want to think about a Tracker user named 'editors'
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
<Yves> tracker not associated to irc yet, but we can the web interface for now
bob: some WGs find a primer to be a useful aid to understanding the specs
... Shall the WS-RA WG produce a primer?
??: One Primer per spec, or just one Primer?
<dug> While I think, in general, primers are good, until we have an area of confusion I'd prefer to wait
bob: Is there anyone on this call who is willing to write a Primer?
<dug> my first choice would be to have areas of confusion be fixed in the spec
GregC: Primers are for wordy explanations that might not be appropriate for a spec
gpilz: tend to agree -- good place for use cases, etc
bob: any opposition to accepting issue 6442?
... Accepted without opposition
... Issue assigned to gpilz
... I assume the open question in the initial issue will be addressed with a more specific proposal
Geoff: Note that this is another example of the larger upgrade to support WS-Addressing REC
... do we have lots of individual issues (which is OK, just asking)
<Prasad2> +1 to having separate issues, helps focus the issue to specific area or matter
<dug> bob - there's 6459
bob: granularity is up to the issue submitter
<scribe> new issue 6459
<gpilz> good catch!
bob: issue 6459 accepted without opposition and assigned to Li
<dug> this is the _easy_ one you mentioned at the f2f :-)
<Bob> scribe: Bob
<gpilz> +1 to Doug
<Prasad2> So, the WS-A:EPR definition has no extensibility built in?
<gpilz> EPR's have extensibility in them
Bob: The extensibility facet of this issue was decided at the f2f to be separate from the decision of which version of epr to reference
resolution: Resolve Issue-6433 with the proposal contained in Bugzilla Comment #1 w/o
<dug> no objection to more digestion/composting :-)
<asir> what was that :-)
send to the list and defer consideration for a future meeting
<dug> since this was pretty much covered at the f2f I wouldn't object to accepting it now - but no objection to composting either :-)
Li introduces his proposal
<gpilz> I wouldn't object to accepting it either - good work
Li introduces his prosal
<gpilz> again this looks acceptable
Originator wishes to withdraw these issues
resolution: Close Issues 6408, 6409, 6410, 6414, 6415, and 6416 without action w/o