IRC log of tagmem on 2003-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:42:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:42:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
19:49:56 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
19:57:49 [DanC]
wanna /op me, Ian?
19:58:09 [DanC]
19:58:27 [Ian]
zakim, this will be tag
19:58:27 [Zakim]
ok, Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM already started
19:58:36 [Zakim]
19:59:48 [Ian]
RRSagent, stop
20:00:05 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #tagmem
20:00:12 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:00:14 [Stuart]
Just dialing...
20:00:27 [Zakim]
20:01:26 [Zakim]
20:01:44 [Zakim]
20:01:47 [DanC]
Zakim, you could wait 'till i pick up the phone to claim that I'm here.
20:01:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you could wait 'till i pick up the phone to claim that I'm here.', DanC
20:01:53 [Ian]
Ian has changed the topic to:
20:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.801.328.aaaa
20:02:07 [Stuart]
Having calling card problems :)
20:02:14 [timbl]
Paul calls in from a light aircraft
20:02:15 [Ian]
zakim, mute aaaa
20:02:15 [Zakim]
+1.801.328.aaaa should now be muted
20:02:21 [Ian]
zakim, aaaa is Paul
20:02:21 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
20:02:29 [Ian]
zakim, unmute Paul
20:02:29 [Zakim]
Paul should no longer be muted
20:02:56 [Zakim]
20:03:02 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
20:03:15 [Zakim]
20:03:47 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
20:03:47 [DanC]
timbl's a closet hardware geek ;-)
20:03:58 [timbl]
Zakim, who is here?
20:03:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, ??P1, Ian, TimBL, DanC (muted), DOrchard, Paul, Tim_Bray, Chris
20:04:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Chris, Roy, Stuart, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
20:04:02 [Chris]
zakim, who is speaking?
20:04:19 [Zakim]
Chris, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P1 (14%), Paul (100%), Tim_Bray (4%), Ian (34%)
20:04:28 [Ian]
Roll call: Paul, Chris, TB, TBL, IJ, DO, DC, RF, NW
20:04:43 [Zakim]
20:04:45 [Ian]
zakim, ??P1 is Roy
20:04:45 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
20:04:50 [Ian]
zakim, ??P7 is Stuart
20:04:50 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
20:04:54 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
20:04:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Roy, Ian, TimBL, DanC (muted), DOrchard, Paul, Tim_Bray, Chris, Stuart
20:04:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Chris, Roy, Stuart, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, Ian
20:05:01 [Zakim]
20:06:32 [Zakim]
20:07:09 [Ian]
Chair: SW, Scribe: IJ
20:07:20 [Ian]
# Accept 24 Feb telecon minutes?
20:07:27 [Ian]
20:07:36 [Ian]
zakim, mute Paul
20:07:36 [Zakim]
Paul should now be muted
20:07:45 [Ian]
CL: Minutes fine.
20:08:24 [DanC]
# 6 1 = mute on.
20:08:30 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept 24 Feb minutes
20:08:38 [Ian]
Accept this agenda?
20:08:43 [Ian]
20:10:17 [DanC]
Zakim, unmute me
20:10:18 [Zakim]
DanC should no longer be muted
20:11:16 [Ian]
TBL: In recent discussion on XInclude, discussion about forward references to specs.
20:11:17 [Ian]
CL: +1
20:11:28 [Ian]
SW: I suggest we put under new issues.
20:12:07 [Norm]
Norm has joined #tagmem
20:12:07 [Ian]
SW: Yes,l add to today's agenda.
20:12:59 [DanC]
sound like contentTypeOverride-24 should go higher
20:13:03 [Ian]
[Discussion of agenda construction]
20:13:26 [Ian]
CL: I'd rather see actions listed as "outstanding actions"
20:13:31 [Ian]
DC: Yes.
20:13:42 [Ian]
SW: Put them below a ruler, but don't set expectations to be discussed.
20:14:06 [Ian]
DC: PLease move 24 up this week since related to TBL issue.
20:14:27 [Ian]
Next meeting: 24 March.
20:14:37 [Ian]
Regrets: TBL. At risk: CL
20:14:44 [DanC]
DC ok for 24Mar
20:14:48 [Ian]
20:14:50 [Ian]
Meeting planning
20:14:56 [Ian]
1) To meet in May 2003.
20:15:18 [Ian]
SW: Proposal: 22 all day, 23 morning, 24 morning.
20:15:33 [Ian]
SW: I think TBL will have difficulty committing to those dates.
20:15:49 [Ian]
SW: Other constraints (1) two solid days if we meet in May (2) Director should be present.
20:16:19 [Chris]
I would need to step out at least twice, in that time, for talks
20:17:00 [TBray]
20:17:17 [DanC]
(anybody got a poitner to the W3C track handy?)
20:18:10 [Chris]
q+ to say we are getting towards "no face to face meeting" due to overconstraint
20:18:35 [TBray]
20:18:36 [Chris]
ack tbray
20:18:42 [Ian]
CL: I propose we cancel May mtg.
20:18:57 [Ian]
TB: I propose we investigate virtual meeting after WWW conf.
20:18:59 [Ian]
TBL: Seconded
20:19:19 [Ian]
DC: Seconded
20:20:06 [Ian]
TB proposed: Let's agree that ftf in Budapest is off, and that we will do our best to schedule a virtual meeting in that time frame.
20:20:12 [Chris]
20:20:30 [Ian]
Resolved: No ftf meeting in Budapest
20:20:34 [Ian]
zakim, unmute Paul
20:20:34 [Zakim]
Paul should no longer be muted
20:21:22 [Ian]
Action PC: Inform organizers tha TAG does not intend to meet during that week in Budapest.
20:21:44 [Norm]
Immediately before won't work for Paul Cotton or myself
20:21:53 [Ian]
CL: I suggest virtual meeting more than 1 week after Budapest.
20:22:07 [Ian]
TB: Proposed week of 2 June.
20:22:16 [Ian]
TB: Proposed 5-6 June
20:22:38 [Chris]
5-6 is ok for me
20:23:18 [Ian]
Action TBL: Propose to TAG dates for meeting in early June (after 4 June). Some willingness also to meet before May conf.
20:23:57 [Ian]
TAG's Presentation at AC meeting?
20:24:11 [Chris]
I will be there
20:24:20 [Ian]
Expect to be in Budapest: CL, PC, TBL, NW(maybe), IJ, DC.
20:24:27 [DanC]
er... I'll be outside the AC meeting on 20May.
20:24:44 [Ian]
Expect to be in Budapest: +DO
20:25:41 [Ian]
SW: Let's talk about AC presentation mid-April.'
20:26:00 [Ian]
SW: Same applies for W3C track.
20:26:08 [Ian]
IJ: I think we may need to address that one earlier.
20:26:14 [Ian]
IJ: To be in sync with track planner.
20:26:19 [Ian]
20:26:31 [DanC]
(anybody got a poitner to the W3C track handy?)
20:27:26 [Ian]
20:27:51 [Ian]
16.00 - 17.30
20:27:57 [Ian]
# Technical Architecture Group scope
20:28:08 [Chris]
so 30 minutes
20:28:15 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
20:28:37 [Chris]
ok I can help with that
20:28:48 [DanC]
which of Wed/Thu/Fri is really 21May?
20:28:53 [Ian]
SW: Let's schedule some time early April to discuss presentation
20:28:59 [Norm]
21 is Wednesday
20:29:03 [Ian]
20:29:07 [Ian]
Mailing list management
20:29:11 [Ian]
SW: I sent alt text for tips
20:29:42 [Ian]
20:29:52 [DanC]
ack Chris
20:29:52 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to say we are getting towards "no face to face meeting" due to overconstraint
20:29:59 [DanC]
ack DanC
20:29:59 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say without constraint?
20:30:34 [Ian]
DC: I will review the text once it's in place.
20:31:15 [Ian]
DC: People are supposed to study the issues list and decide whether what they want to discuss is a new issue.
20:31:58 [Ian]
Resolved: Include SW's text in Tips.
20:32:06 [Ian]
Action IJ: Update tips per SW suggestion.
20:32:19 [Ian]
Action SW: Send msg to www-tag drawing people's attention to revised text.
20:32:20 [Ian]
20:32:27 [Ian]
Proposal for public-tag-announce list.
20:32:47 [Ian]
20:32:56 [Ian]
DC: Please do not send agendas to announcement list.
20:33:17 [Ian]
CL: I think there are two different audiences; those who wish to follow in detail.
20:33:40 [Ian]
CL: There are people who want lighter level follow: findings, summaries.
20:34:02 [Ian]
PC: I don't see need to limit list to what we've done (as opposed to what we are going to do)
20:34:23 [Ian]
PC: People I spoke to at tech plenary expressed interest in when we are going to discuss something.
20:34:50 [Ian]
PC: A large community of people won't subscribe to www-tag due to volume.
20:35:27 [Ian]
[Discussion of cross-posting mechanisms]
20:35:34 [Ian]
ack DanC
20:35:57 [Ian]
DC: If we are calling for input from the larger community, I don't expect the agenda to be the only way to do so.
20:36:49 [Ian]
PC: You can find out what's going on on www-tag through the archive. If you see that some issue is going to be discussed on Monday, you could follow the www-tag archive.
20:36:58 [Ian]
DC: You can tune into the archive on Monday.
20:37:20 [Ian]
SW proposal:
20:37:23 [Ian]
- create new announcement list
20:37:23 [TBray]
20:37:41 [Ian]
- announce findings, new issues, issue resolutions, arch doc updates
20:37:59 [DanC]
minutes to tag-announce pls
20:38:12 [Ian]
SW: announce agenda to www-tag
20:38:23 [Ian]
TB: We have consensus that mailing list a good idea.
20:38:39 [Ian]
DC: Agendas will go to announce list over my objection.
20:38:51 [Ian]
DC: MInutes ok to announcement list.
20:38:55 [Norm]
20:39:06 [Chris]
ok, thats fine
20:39:08 [Ian]
Resolved: Create new announcement list for findings, new issues, issue resolutions, arch doc updates, minutes.
20:39:15 [Ian]
[And send agendas to www-tag]
20:39:19 [Ian]
Action IJ: Request setup of list.;
20:39:27 [Ian]
20:39:30 [DanC]
thanks, Ian.
20:39:36 [Ian]
IJ will also update tag home page with new list info.
20:39:46 [Ian]
20:39:49 [Ian]
Review of input from technical plenary
20:39:53 [Ian]
20:39:53 [Ian]
o BOF report from Henry Thompson
20:39:57 [Ian]
20:40:14 [Ian]
(Issue xlinkScope-23)
20:40:42 [Ian]
SW: Summary - The Hypertext CG and XML CG should constitute a small (six to eight members) joint task force to write a reqs document.
20:41:10 [Ian]
SW: Question of timeframe; a priori expected commitment to the outcome.
20:41:24 [TBray]
20:41:43 [Ian]
SW: Spirit of proposal generally accepted.
20:42:13 [Ian]
DC: I'm sort of tuned out since it looks like nothing will happen any time soon.
20:42:19 [Ian]
DC: That doesn't bother me.
20:42:49 [Ian]
CL: Some sinking feeling at BOF that discussion will go on somewhere else.
20:42:58 [Ian]
TBL: Notes not that inspiring.
20:43:05 [Ian]
TB: Count me as uninspired.
20:43:43 [Ian]
TB: I don't think we'll make the tech discussion easier by having it over a reqs doc instead of over a solution.
20:43:55 [Ian]
TB: What leads anyone to suspect that there is consensus out there?
20:44:39 [Ian]
TBL: Perhaps way to move forward is to require that (1) any feature proposed must provide rationale for what cannot be done without that feature
20:44:56 [DanC]
I have come to appreciate requirements documents. They have a time and a place. esp in diverse communities that would like to learn to talk to each other.
20:45:02 [Ian]
TB: I don't think we have to do anything (as the TA).
20:45:10 [Ian]
20:45:17 [Norm]
20:45:38 [Ian]
TB: If two CG's think a task force is appropriate, that's great; What do we have to offer at this point?
20:45:51 [Ian]
CL: A statement that there is an architectural hole, for example.
20:46:53 [Ian]
NW: I agree with TB. I think individuals might be able to do more, but TAG may not be able to.
20:46:56 [Ian]
ack Norm
20:46:58 [Ian]
ack DanC
20:47:06 [Ian]
DC: One possibility -
20:47:41 [Ian]
1) I asked NW what he thought the ideal solution was. I think NW's position was that it would be better to pick one arbitrary choice, rather than have N floating around.
20:47:46 [Ian]
2) TAG could pick one and market it.
20:48:07 [TBray]
DanC: "The TAG exists as a marketplace for attention."
20:48:31 [Ian]
DC: I am not inspired by the technical material, nor that picking one will be a substantial advance in the art.
20:48:39 [Ian]
DC: But we could be a force for unification.
20:48:52 [Ian]
TB: We tried this and convinced approximately nobody.
20:48:57 [Ian]
DC: These things take time.
20:49:36 [Ian]
TB [revision]: I think that it might be productive to invest some time to examine the technical issues and let the community know what we think. I'm not interested in the work of creating task forces.
20:50:25 [Ian]
SW: I think most of TAG would back one choice as opposed to let 1k flowers bloom.
20:50:34 [Ian]
SW: I have to communicate with two CGs.
20:50:46 [Ian]
Action SW: communicate with two CGs tone of this discussion.
20:52:37 [Ian]
DC: I hear CL and TB saying "let's not close 23 without further discussion". So I expect SW to tell CGs that we expect to address this technically in substance; so we should be involved in their discussions.
20:54:20 [Ian]
CL: The TAG cares about the results (of the task force)
20:54:37 [Ian]
Revised action SW: draft note for TAG review of comments to two CGs
20:54:37 [DanC]
"involved in"... umm... I mean "connected to, somehow"
20:55:47 [Ian]
20:55:51 [Ian]
Tech Plenary feedback.
20:56:16 [Ian]
DC: I heard feedback that TAG could take some credit for civility of discussions.
20:56:31 [DanC]
lemme rephrase:
20:56:53 [DanC]
DC: I heard folks say this plenary was good cuz folks could disagree civilly. I think the TAG had some role in establishing that norm.
20:57:00 [Ian]
[Some question about number of Tech Plenary meetings per year]
20:58:00 [Ian]
Some feedback from PC:
20:58:17 [Ian]
20:58:18 [DanC]
I haven't reviewed the tech planary IRC log for TAG suggestions, but I tried to watch for TAG stuff real-time and send mail at the time.
20:58:32 [Ian]
20:58:33 [Ian]
New issues
20:58:37 [Ian]
* message passing, a dual of shared state from Dan Connolly
20:58:40 [Ian]
20:59:24 [Ian]
DC: Lots of arch discussions about REST/URIs. But there's another category of "conversations"
20:59:41 [Ian]
E.g., "Conversations and state"
20:59:50 [Ian]
DC: Voice, Web services closer to conversational interface.
21:00:10 [Ian]
DC: I think that this is discussed enough that the TAG should either include in arch doc, do a finding, etc.
21:00:13 [Ian]
RF: What's the issue?
21:00:21 [TBray]
21:00:33 [Ian]
DC: People get confused that "if it's not rest-like it shouldn't be near W3C."
21:00:50 [Ian]
TBL: The issue is that "not everything is rest."
21:00:54 [Ian]
RF: That's not an issue.
21:01:02 [Chris]
21:01:32 [Ian]
DC: I don't have text to propose to the editor right now.
21:01:43 [Ian]
SW: I wonder whether placeholder sufficient.
21:02:08 [DanC]
what's the difference between an issue and a placeholder in the arch doc?
21:02:14 [Ian]
TB: I find DC's statement of the issue kind of fuzzy. It may be on the Web but it's architecture not defined by REST.
21:02:28 [Ian]
TB: I'm prepared to accept that something could be usefully said in the arch doc.
21:02:33 [Roy]
21:02:47 [Ian]
DC: See gist of
21:02:50 [Stuart]
ack TBray
21:03:29 [Stuart]
ack Chris
21:03:31 [Ian]
CL: At a minimum we should say that scope of arch doc is limited; could be useful to point out to people when things are are outside of scope.
21:03:46 [Ian]
RF: I don't consider it an issue that there are other interaction models on the information space that is the Web.
21:04:04 [timbl]
21:04:08 [Ian]
ack Roy
21:04:24 [Ian]
TBL: Perhaps we should have an update on W3C Activities for the TAG
21:04:26 [DanC]
ack timbl
21:05:13 [Ian]
TBL: There's a lot of stuff happening in Voice Activity on dialogs; they are modeling dialog paths and dialog outcomes.
21:05:42 [Ian]
TBL: Some Web Services work not using REST either.
21:06:51 [Chris]
q+ to talk about state in xforms
21:07:21 [Ian]
RF: I understand the arguments; I don't understand why this is an "issue"; just add to interactions section.
21:08:18 [Ian]
SW Proposal: Put placeholder in arch doc.
21:08:38 [Ian]
Action DC: Write some text for interactions chapter of arch doc.
21:10:35 [Ian]
DC: Don't expect this week.
21:10:44 [Ian]
21:11:05 [Ian]
TB: Can't stay
21:11:08 [Ian]
TBL: Can't stay
21:11:11 [Chris]
Ican stay
21:11:40 [DanC]
ack danc
21:11:40 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to speak to status of voice and to propose to extend the meeting by 20min
21:12:08 [Chris]
ack chris
21:12:08 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about state in xforms
21:13:28 [Ian]
21:13:32 [timbl]
Problems with XInclude moving to Rec include normative reference to Xpointer, charmod, and IRI specs. (Never mind parse=xml)
21:13:35 [Ian]
Xinclude Forward references to incomplete specs [TBL]
21:14:20 [Ian]
PC: On Jonathan March issue, please put on next week's agenda.
21:14:28 [Ian]
TB: Let's both accept and talk about it next week.
21:14:40 [Ian]
SW: We'll discuss next week.
21:15:03 [Ian]
21:15:19 [Chris]
q+ to talk about the use of IRIreferences
21:15:25 [DanC]
(pointer to this thing that's been pending for too long?)
21:17:17 [Ian]
TBL: There are some issues around XInclude around forward references (Charmod, IRI spec, Xpointer)
21:17:21 [timbl]
Problems with XInclude moving to Rec include normative reference to Xpointer, charmod, and IRI specs. (Never mind parse=xml)
21:18:03 [DanC]
we said IRIs are good? when/where?
21:18:05 [Ian]
TBL: Xpointer referenced for issues about frag id; points to charmod for XML parsing; points to IRI spec with caveats.
21:18:23 [Ian]
21:18:23 [Ian]
21:18:23 [Ian]
# IRIEverywhere-27
21:18:23 [Ian]
* Action CL 2003/01/27: Send piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote to www-tag.
21:18:39 [Chris]
we said people should prepare for IRI, do it by copy and paste, and be ready to eratta once IRI was set in stone
21:18:46 [Chris]
this seems to be exactly whatthey did
21:18:52 [Ian]
TBL: XInclude spec says the WG plans to revise spec when IRI spec is finished.
21:18:55 [Chris]
tbl: no IRI in test suite
21:19:13 [Stuart]
21:19:26 [Ian]
TBL: Arch questions - how to decouple the specs?
21:19:43 [DanC]
(reviewing our records, I find no decisions re IRIEverywhere-27)
21:19:53 [Ian]
TBL: No matter how the IRI spec comes out, it won't affect reviews of XPointer. But it will affect conformance of software.
21:21:23 [Ian]
TBL: I think that what XInclude authors wrote in their spec may not be helpful since it may lead to operability problems when the spec is changed.
21:21:53 [Chris]
ian, you and i need to revise that doc based on later discussions
21:22:14 [Ian]
NW: I thought I had been told that I could tell Core WG that TAG was in favor of IRIs.
21:22:32 [Ian]
CL: I understood that, too.
21:22:53 [DanC]
We have decided *exactly* what our records say we have decided, no?
21:23:12 [Chris]
so, they did exactly the right think on IRI reference
21:24:03 [Chris]
21:24:17 [Ian]
CL: IRIs not on Rec track; but is headed to being standard.
21:24:49 [Ian]
21:24:52 [Ian]
ack Chris
21:24:52 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about the use of IRIreferences and to
21:25:31 [Ian]
ack Ian
21:25:51 [Ian]
CL: The piece that CL/MD/IJ wrote is now outdated.
21:26:04 [Ian]
Action CL/IJ: Revise this IRI summary by next week.
21:26:15 [Chris]
action ian and chris revise this for next week and send it
21:26:21 [Ian]
(to www-tag)
21:26:23 [Norm]
Charmod references the IETF I-D IRI
21:26:32 [Chris]
norm - thanks
21:26:44 [Ian]
21:27:11 [Ian]
CL: Specs like XML Schema have similar wording; they cut and paste - don't make normative ref.
21:27:19 [Norm]
21:27:31 [DanC]
For the record: The TAG has not made any decisions on IRIEverywhere. Hence I'm not party to any advice anybody's giving outside the TAG on this issue. I'd much prefer actions to advise other groups waited until we'd decided the issue.
21:28:02 [Chris]
IRI is more mature, not yes at this point so we should trust them to do the IRI-related erattum at the appropriate time
21:29:15 [Ian]
[Examples of other specs doing something similar re: IRIs]
21:29:27 [Chris]
ok so I believesd we had at least made some decisions, even if we had not closed the whole issue
21:29:50 [Norm]
obviously, I thought we had general agreement as well
21:29:50 [Ian]
SW: RDF abstract model doc also talks about this with slightly different language
21:30:05 [TBray]
21:30:11 [Norm]
in fact, if asked before this call, I might have believed that the issue was open only because we didn't write down what we had agreedd to
21:30:16 [Zakim]
21:30:44 [Chris]
norm, that is where I thought we were, too
21:31:19 [DanC]
*all* issues are only open because we haven't written down what we agreed to.
21:31:50 [Norm]
no, dan, there's more to it if we don't have agreeement, and you seem to be asserting that we dont
21:32:28 [Zakim]
21:32:37 [DanC]
all the work is in the writing it down.
21:33:06 [Ian]
[meeting extended]
21:34:15 [Ian]
[No resolution]
21:34:16 [Ian]
21:34:18 [Ian]
Arch Document
21:34:35 [Ian]
DC: I would prefer 6 Feb draft to 21 Feb draft.
21:34:38 [Ian]
(go to TR page)
21:34:55 [Stuart]
21:34:58 [Norm]
21:34:59 [DanC]
I prefer the draft of 6Feb
21:37:06 [Ian]
IJ: I am frustrated with lack of input on this draft. Not sure how to proceed.
21:37:37 [Ian]
DC: I support TR page publication of 6 Feb draft.
21:39:56 [Ian]
DC: If you have a new intro, seek specific reviewers.
21:40:06 [Ian]
IJ: What can I do to get more input?
21:40:28 [Ian]
DC: We all have limited time; I have to balance where to turn my attention.
21:40:37 [Ian]
DC Proposal: Request publication of 6 Feb draft on TR page.
21:40:44 [Roy]
I am focused on URI spec due to IETF meeting on Thursday
21:41:21 [Chris]
Sorry, I would need to see the differences between these before agreeing to backtrack
21:42:05 [Ian]
IJ: I think the 21 Feb draft is a better intro, even if not what it ultimately looks like.
21:42:36 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to see diagram of specific URI of GET(URI)-> Representation
21:42:44 [Ian]
[People keen on idea of diagram]
21:43:35 [Norm]
It's a heartbeat. I vote "concur" to publish any draft.
21:46:42 [Ian]
IJ: I hear three proposals: 6 Feb draft, 21 Feb draft, some hybrid with 6 Feb intro
21:46:58 [Ian]
SW: My preference is for hybrid.
21:48:01 [Ian]
Action IJ:
21:48:11 [Norm]
Go for it!
21:48:26 [Ian]
Action IJ: Draft a new hybrid that incorporates intro of 6 Feb draft into 21 Feb version.
21:49:10 [Ian]
IJ: I will try to get TB okay before requesting publication on TR page.
21:49:23 [Ian]
SW: I am available to look at hybrid draft.
21:49:45 [Ian]
21:49:57 [Zakim]
21:49:58 [Zakim]
21:49:59 [Zakim]
21:50:00 [Zakim]
21:50:01 [Ian]
zakim, drop Ian
21:50:01 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
21:50:02 [Zakim]
21:50:14 [Zakim]
21:50:19 [Zakim]
21:50:30 [Zakim]
21:50:31 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:50:58 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop