19:25:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:25:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-irc
19:25:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:25:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:25:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:25:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
19:25:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:25:09 <trackbot> Date: 05 May 2009
19:25:25 <fmaciel> fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:26:08 <li> li has joined #ws-ra
19:26:42 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:26:53 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
19:27:58 <TomRutt> TomRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:21 <Zakim> +Wu_Chou
19:29:30 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
19:29:42 <Bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0006.html
19:29:55 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:30:16 <Bob> zakim, [Micro is Geoff
19:30:16 <Zakim> +Geoff; got it
19:30:18 <DaveS> DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:30:19 <Zakim> + +1.702.414.aaaa
19:30:25 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:30:26 <Bob> zakim, Geoff has Asir
19:30:26 <Zakim> +Asir; got it
19:30:43 <dug> dug has joined #ws-ra
19:30:46 <Bob> Zakim, aaaa is Doug
19:30:46 <Zakim> +Doug; got it
19:30:48 <DaveS> Hi folks Dave's on line. Will dial in shortly.
19:30:57 <dug> brb
19:31:28 <Zakim> + +1.408.642.aabb
19:31:33 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:32:07 <Zakim> +??P7
19:32:18 <Bob> zakim, aabb is a lurker
19:32:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aabb is a lurker', Bob
19:32:26 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
19:32:32 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:32:43 <Bob> zakim, P7 is Katy
19:32:43 <Zakim> sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P7'
19:32:59 <Bob> zakim, ??P7 is Katy
19:32:59 <Zakim> +Katy; got it
19:33:12 <Bob> zakim, aabb is Gilbert
19:33:12 <Zakim> +Gilbert; got it
19:33:15 <Zakim> +Yves
19:33:27 <Zakim> + +1.646.361.aacc
19:33:47 <Zakim> + +1.408.970.aadd
19:33:55 <Bob> zakim, aacc is Vikas
19:33:55 <Zakim> +Vikas; got it
19:34:33 <Zakim> +??P11
19:34:43 <Bob> zakim, aadd is Fred
19:34:43 <Zakim> +Fred; got it
19:34:57 <Bob> Zakim, ??P11 is Dave
19:34:57 <Zakim> +Dave; got it
19:35:13 <Zakim> +Don_Wright
19:36:01 <Bob> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0006.html
19:36:09 <asir> asir has joined #ws-ra
19:37:37 <Bob> scribe: Gilbert Pilz
19:38:04 <gpilz> TOPIC: agenda bashing
19:38:14 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: agenda approved by UC
19:38:27 <gpilz> TOPIC: approval of minutes from 04/28/2009
19:38:37 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: minutes approved by UC
19:39:01 <gpilz> TOPIC: F2F scheduling
19:39:18 <gpilz> Bob: June 9-11 at Oracle HQ in Redwood Shores, CA
19:39:57 <gpilz> ...: get your RSPs 2 weeks prior or you won't be fed
19:39:58 <Vikas> Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:40:31 <gpilz> ...: I will set up a ballot that will close on 5/26/2009
19:40:43 <gpilz> ...: we are planning on all three days
19:41:09 <gpilz> TOPIC: new snapshots
19:41:21 <gpilz> Bob: we've close a few issues so we should take a new snapshot
19:41:32 <gpilz> ...: Yves, can you take care of that?
19:41:37 <gpilz> Yves: yes
19:41:47 <Yves> ACTION: Yves to generate may 1st snapshots
19:41:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Generate may 1st snapshots [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-05-12].
19:42:07 <gpilz> Bob: just review the things that have closed since the last snapshot
19:42:08 <Zakim> +JeffM
19:42:23 <gpilz> ...: the W3C process specifies a 3 month heartbeat
19:42:35 <gpilz> ...: on that basis, we should have a new WGD out in June
19:42:44 <Zakim> -Vikas
19:42:45 <Zakim> + +1.571.262.aaee
19:43:01 <gpilz> ...: Do we have enough time to put togther such a thing, and approve it at the F2F?
19:43:14 <gpilz> Wu: Will this WGD be the final one?
19:43:39 <gpilz> Bob: There is a WGD that occurs every 3 months. There is no progressive status. It is not last call or anything like that.
19:43:41 <gpilz> Wu: OK
19:44:34 <gpilz> Gil: Want me to create an AI?
19:44:46 <gpilz> Bob: Too early. Wait until the end of May snapshot.
19:44:54 <gpilz> q+
19:45:15 <Bob> ack gpi
19:45:35 <gpilz> TOPIC: AI review
19:46:21 <gpilz> Bob: Would every one who has an AI please review them and either (a) adjust the date or (b) offer it up for someone else to do.
19:47:43 <gpilz> TOPIC: New Issues
19:47:54 <gpilz> Bob: One new issue, Gil's, 6860
19:48:07 <gpilz> ...: any objection to accepting this and assigning to Gil?
19:48:20 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: 6860 accepted and assigned to Gil
19:48:45 <Geoff> q+
19:48:58 <gpilz> TOPIC:  Task Team Progress
19:49:22 <gpilz> Bob: Who will speak for team 6413?
19:49:25 <Bob> ack geo
19:50:05 <gpilz> Geoff: Not really clear what the scope of deliverables is.
19:50:29 <gpilz> ...: Microsoft and IBM are working on a list of questions to be answered, but there are two main points of contention.
19:50:45 <gpilz> ... We can't make progress until we resolve these.
19:51:01 <gpilz> ... Should the fragment specifiers be in the same namespace as WS-T?
19:51:21 <gpilz> ... Should the fragment dialects, operations, etc. be in the same specification as WS-T?
19:51:24 <Zakim> -Dave
19:51:33 <gpilz> ... It's time to return to the WG on how to decide these issues.
19:51:47 <gpilz> Bob: Do other member of the Task Team concur?
19:51:52 <gpilz> Katy: Yes.
19:52:11 <gpilz> Bob: It seems that these issues are described. Are they described enough to deal with them on this call?
19:52:21 <gpilz> ... Does everyone have their arguments in place?
19:52:22 <Zakim> +??P8
19:52:25 <gpilz> Kary: Yes.
19:52:44 <gpilz> Bob: Should we deal with them in that order, or the opposite order?
19:52:46 <dug> s/Kary/Katy/
19:52:51 <gpilz> ... They are kind of connected, right?
19:52:56 <gpilz> Geoff: Yes.
19:53:16 <Katy> q+
19:53:29 <gpilz> Bob: Sould the fragment specification, whever it is contained, be in the WS-T namespace or not?
19:53:33 <Bob> ack katy
19:54:10 <gpilz> Katy: We discussed this with our dev teams.
19:54:34 <gpilz> ... Our products teams would not implement WS-T without at least basic fragment support.
19:54:59 <gpilz> ... The reason that WS-T and WS-RT were split is primarily historical.
19:55:37 <gpilz> ... The key reason why it is bad to split these into two namespaces is that it allows a loophole of different fragment mechanisms within WS-T.
19:55:49 <Geoff> q+
19:56:04 <gpilz> ... Putting them in the same namespace/spec removes any ambiguity about how fragments should be supported in WS-T.
19:56:38 <DaveS> I strongly support Katy's notion that one namespace supports better chances of interoperability.
19:56:45 <gpilz> Bob: (missed question)
19:56:59 <dug> Bob: can frag support be used outside of T?
19:57:10 <Ashok> Yes, I also support Katy's notion that one namespace supports better chances of interoperability.
19:57:11 <gpilz> Katy: We need to look at the 99% use case. We've looked at splitting it out into an appendix.
19:57:12 <dug> Katy: maybe in theory but we don't see it in practice 
19:57:34 <gpilz> Bob: Any further arguments in favor?
19:57:39 <gpilz> Bob: Any against?
19:57:43 <Bob> ack geo
19:57:52 <gpilz> Geoff: Not sure where to start here . . .
19:58:17 <Wu> q+
19:58:17 <gpilz> ... One of the primary reasons for putting it in the WS-T namespace seems to be to force people to adopt something.
19:58:35 <gpilz> ... This seems very strange. You're not going to be able to do this.
19:58:45 <gpilz> ... We don't have the right to do this.
19:58:59 <gpilz> ... We can offer up specs and, if we do things right, people will use them.
19:59:10 <gpilz> ... But it's not right to force people to do things they don't want to do.
19:59:22 <gpilz> ... Other issues: no real reason to make this change.
20:00:09 <Katy> q+
20:00:18 <gpilz> ... No evidence that I have seen that this is other than political
20:00:34 <gpilz> ... These have been separate in the past, they work separately, there's no value to combining them.
20:00:58 <gpilz> ... WS-T has been widely adopted, widely referenced, and widely implmented.
20:01:23 <gpilz> ... There are reasons for combining specs, we should stick to those.
20:01:34 <gpilz> Bob: Will allow Katy to rebut.
20:01:35 <Bob> ack katy
20:01:56 <gpilz> Katy: This isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It simply specifies the recommended way of supporting fragment access.
20:02:15 <gpilz> ... This has nothing to do with politicis. It is simply about support fragment access.
20:02:33 <gpilz> ... It also provides a pattern for fragment extensibility that other specifications can use.
20:02:38 <gpilz> Geoff: We disagree.
20:02:53 <DaveS> q+
20:02:55 <gpilz> ... I don't believe that there are any serious technical reasons for doing this.
20:03:01 <dug> constrained devices (which are impacted by additional namespace) would be impacted by having to support 2 specs instead of 1- and they would use frag support exactly because they're constrained.
20:03:07 <gpilz> ... This is just joining things together "for advantage".
20:03:16 <Bob> ack wu
20:03:20 <gpilz> Wu: I'm kind of confused and concerned.
20:03:39 <gpilz> ... The group has already reached consensus to split the two (WS-T and frag)
20:03:42 <gpilz> q+
20:03:47 <dug> q+
20:04:00 <gpilz> Wu: This has already been decided.
20:04:10 <asir> Yes the WG reached consensus prior to forming 6413 taskforce
20:04:13 <gpilz> ... This appears to be a step back from the previous consensus.
20:04:43 <Bob> Ack Yves
20:04:51 <gpilz> Yves: I want to restate what I said at a previous concall.
20:05:02 <gpilz> ...: For me, fragments are really part of the EPR
20:05:16 <gpilz> ... The definition of fragments is in the ??? spec
20:05:31 <gpilz> ... The meaning of the fragment is usually related to the MIME type
20:05:47 <gpilz> ... In this case things are different because we constrained to XML?
20:05:50 <Geoff> +1 to Yves
20:05:59 <gpilz> ... Don't see a reason to combine them.
20:06:04 <Bob> Ack dave
20:06:17 <gpilz> DaveS: Primary reason to put fragments in WS-T is to promote interoperability.
20:06:20 <Geoff> interop can be achieved without joinign them together
20:06:38 <gpilz> ... I agree with Geoff that the only way this will work is if we produce a high-quality spec that is easy to use.
20:06:54 <Yves> as long as a namespace is chosen for fragment, it will provide interop, there is no need to group specs on namespaces (apart to reduce the number of ns URIs in implementations runtime)
20:06:56 <gpilz> ... We need to produce one spec to pull the community together.
20:07:10 <Bob> ack gpil
20:07:32 <dug> Gil: to Wu (re: this was decided) - not my understanding
20:07:47 <dug> ... the task force was to look at what things would look like _if_ there was a frag spec
20:08:06 <dug> ... it was not cast in stone - examine a possibility 
20:08:26 <gpilz> Wu: disagrees
20:08:43 <gpilz> ... I remember it being a consensus
20:09:09 <gpilz> Bob: My recollection was that the idea that it could be a separate specification illicted less negative reactions than the inclusion idea.
20:09:12 <asir> Sounds like we should think about documenting the starting point and the goals and questions for any future taskforces
20:09:13 <Geoff> thankyou Bob
20:09:27 <Bob> ack dug
20:09:33 <gpilz> Doug: I agree with Gil's interpretation
20:10:03 <gpilz> ... IBM think a separate frag spec will not work because a reference from WS-T to another spec isn't a strong enough link to assure interop.
20:10:13 <gpilz> ... One primary example is Member Submission specs.
20:10:32 <gpilz> ... They all say "THis doc is just for evaluation" "This may change"
20:10:36 <gpilz> ... People ignored that.
20:10:53 <gpilz> ... People implemented these specs and now scream loudly when you propose changes.
20:11:19 <gpilz> ... So its unlikely that a simple reference and admonishment will produce the desired result (interop)
20:11:23 <Geoff> W3C has plenty of precedences for establishing such links - SOAP, WS-A and WSDL 
20:11:33 <gpilz> ... To Yves, I'd like to see a concrete proposal around your ideas.
20:11:41 <gpilz> ... I can't see how that would work.
20:11:51 <asir> W3C has plenty of precedences for establishing such links - SOAP, WS-A and WSDL
20:11:56 <asir> asir has joined #ws-ra
20:12:06 <gpilz> ... Fragment support is driven by the client and service-minted EPRs should not be changed by the client.
20:12:12 <gpilz> Yves: The thing is . . . 
20:12:42 <gpilz> ... In a way you are using the EPR if you use the specified policy to talk to the service.
20:12:59 <Geoff> q+
20:13:07 <gpilz> ... You should be able to say that you only want "one part" of "this" (the thing referenced by the EPR)
20:13:20 <gpilz> ... This should be part of WS-Addr so you don't need to tie it to WS-T
20:13:28 <gpilz> ... It should support more that just WS-T
20:13:43 <gpilz> ... In a way you are right about not changing EPRs . . .
20:13:45 <Bob> ack geoff
20:14:06 <gpilz> Geoff: There is plenty of precendent in the W3C for having links between specifications (SOAP, WS-Addr)
20:14:14 <gpilz> ... This is a commonplace way of doing things.
20:14:19 <jeffm> jeffm has joined #ws-ra
20:14:23 <gpilz> ... Yves comment is interesting and valid.
20:14:31 <gpilz> ... WS-Man was thinking that way
20:14:47 <gpilz> ... They put the definition of the resource in the header, not the body of the message.
20:14:52 <jeffm> note: SHOULD is a meaningless way of saying "please, but if you don't, oh well"
20:15:11 <gpilz> ... They were working towards this idea of the concept of a frag being an extension of the concept of an address.
20:15:30 <gpilz> Bob: Do we have a consensus that frags do need to part of our work?
20:15:36 <gpilz> Doug: It is part of our charter.
20:15:47 <gpilz> Bob: Nobody disputes we need frags as part of our output.
20:15:54 <gpilz> ... The question is, where do we put it?
20:16:03 <gpilz> ... In the input specs, it is part of WS-RT.
20:16:16 <gpilz> ... We could just mumble along and have it part of a WS-RT that we produce.
20:16:38 <gpilz> ... Thinking about our alternatives, the namespace issue connects frags to WS-T.
20:16:56 <gpilz> ... Even if frags were in WS-RT, a common namespace would connect them.
20:17:20 <gpilz> ... Conceptually writing it as an EPR extension is another approach.
20:17:29 <gpilz> ... catalog approaches
20:18:01 <gpilz> ... (a) Include (in WS-T with same namespace, (b) Separate (with WS-T namespace), (c) Separate (as an EPR)?
20:18:09 <gpilz> ... (c) do nothing
20:18:40 <Wu> q+
20:18:45 <Yves> isn't "do nothing" a (d) ?
20:18:54 <asir> what is do nothing
20:19:44 <gpilz> Gil: It's a 3 x 2; in WS-T, in separate spec, as an EPR extension then in/out of the WS-T namespace - then "do nothing"
20:20:27 <Bob> ack wu
20:20:28 <dug> a) in T, b) in separate RT spec,  c) EPR extension    ?
20:20:45 <gpilz> .. (a) in WS-T, same namespace as WS-T
20:20:59 <gpilz> ... (b) in a separate spec, same namespace as WS-T
20:21:13 <dug> asir: that's the msft motto 
20:21:14 <gpilz> ... (c) as an EPR extension, same namespace as WS-T
20:21:26 <dug> :-)
20:21:28 <gpilz> ... (d) in WS-T, different namespace than WS-T
20:21:53 <gpilz> ... (e) as a separate spec, different namespace than WS-T
20:22:08 <gpilz> ... (f) as an EPR extension, different namespace than WS-T
20:22:22 <gpilz> ... (g) do nothing (WS-RT as today)
20:22:45 <asir> Thanks for clarifying 'do nothing'
20:23:07 <gpilz> (all) Ridicule Gil for his noisy keyboard
20:23:48 <gpilz> Bob: We don't have Chad, but we do have Open STV
20:23:59 <gpilz> Jeff: Why don't we have Chad?
20:24:01 <gpilz> Bob: Yves?
20:24:15 <gpilz> Yves: We'd have to get it from Paul Downey
20:24:25 <gpilz> Jeff: Open STV works just fine
20:25:27 <gpilz> Bob: Think about your choices, type the letters 'a' through 'g' in IRC scrambled to your taste
20:25:35 <gpilz> ... First one most favorite, last one least.
20:25:43 <gpilz> Jeff: As many as you want
20:27:08 <Geoff> e, g, f, 
20:27:15 <dug> a,d,b,g
20:27:17 <Yves> f e g d
20:27:18 <li> f,e,g
20:27:19 <DaveS> Fujitsu: a, b, d, e, g
20:27:21 <Katy> a d b g
20:27:23 <Wu> egf
20:27:34 <Ashok> a,b
20:27:41 <Vikas> a,g
20:27:43 <asir> egf
20:28:31 <TomRutt> a, b, d, e, g
20:29:30 <gpilz> b, a, d, e
20:30:37 <jeffm> a,b,c
20:31:33 <asir> what about Bob?
20:34:15 <Geoff> I assume this is a straw poll, right?
20:36:28 <gpilz> (all): Attempt to work Open STV
20:36:42 <gpilz> Geoff: Just to be clear, the purpose of this poll is to winnow things down?
20:36:44 <gpilz> Bob: Yes.
20:37:37 <gpilz> Bob: We should have done a dry-run of this before . . .
20:38:16 <gpilz> ... results
20:38:19 <gpilz> ... a - 7
20:38:41 <gpilz> ... e - 3
20:38:45 <gpilz> ... f - 2
20:38:49 <gpilz> ... b - 1
20:39:01 <gpilz> ... (a) wins on the count of first choices
20:39:31 <gpilz> ... (a) was in same spec as WS-T with the same namespace as WS-T
20:39:42 <Bob> Election title: ballot 1
20:39:44 <Bob> Method: Scottish STV
20:39:45 <Bob> Number of total ballots: 13
20:39:47 <Bob> Number of invalid or empty ballots: 0
20:39:48 <Bob> Number of ballots used in the count: 13
20:39:50 <Bob> 7 candidate running for 1 seats.
20:39:52 <Bob>  R|a      |b      |c      |d      |e      |f      |g      |Exhaust|Surplus|Thresho
20:39:53 <Bob>   |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |ed     |       |ld     
20:39:55 <Bob> ==================================================================================================================
20:39:56 <Bob>  1|7.00000|1.00000|0.00000|0.00000|3.00000|2.00000|0.00000|0.00000|0.00000|7.00000
20:39:58 <Bob>   |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20:40:00 <Bob>   | Count of first choices. Candidate a has reached the threshold and is elected. The election is over since all
20:40:01 <Bob>   | seats are filled.
20:40:03 <Bob> Winner is a.
20:41:02 <gpilz> Bob: To take it from here, things other than 'a' or 'e' seem to have little support.
20:41:14 <gpilz> ... Hitachi doesn't have that strong an opinion on this
20:41:27 <gpilz> ... 'a' seems to have the advantage by more than a factor of 2
20:41:46 <gpilz> ... For those people that support things other than 'a', is there a way 'a' can be made palatable.
20:42:07 <gpilz> Asir: What was the question?
20:42:09 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
20:42:42 <gpilz> ... Alternatives other than 'a' don't have enough support that, even if they coalesced, couldn't win out over 'a'.
20:42:58 <gpilz> Asir: This is just a strawpoll, right?
20:43:30 <gpilz> Jeff: This clearly shows that there is a group that supports 'a' and a group that supports 'e'. Other than that, there isn't much support for the others.
20:43:37 <asir> fruitful options are a and e
20:43:42 <gpilz> Bob: The only two that are fruitfull are 'a' and 'e'.
20:43:49 <gpilz> ... We can eliminate the others
20:44:09 <gpilz> DaveS: If we do 'e', it is a separate frag spec, not the full WS-RT
20:44:15 <gpilz> Bob: Agrees.
20:44:28 <gpilz> ... But its not clear at that point what would remain WS-RT
20:44:40 <gpilz> Asir: We have an issue on this.
20:44:57 <gpilz> Bob: For those people that want to move frag support, what would be left in WS-RT.
20:45:13 <gpilz> Doug: Mulitple frags, metadata on ???, resource lifecycle stuff
20:45:25 <gpilz> DaveS: multiple dialects
20:46:00 <gpilz> Asir: these need to be documented
20:46:09 <gpilz> Doug: They are in the WS-RT spec.
20:46:33 <gpilz> Bob: Trying to find another alternative . . . we've come down to a pretty black and white situation.
20:46:43 <gpilz> ???: looks like it Bob.
20:47:15 <gpilz> Bob: Anyone object to taking this to a decision?
20:47:24 <gpilz> Geoff: What do you mean "a decision"?
20:47:38 <gpilz> Bob: Another poll (binding?)
20:47:51 <gpilz> Asir: I think we can explore other alternatives.
20:47:55 <gpilz> Bob: Do you have one?
20:48:02 <gpilz> Asir: Not off the top of my head.
20:48:05 <DaveS> I'd like to go for a decision.
20:48:16 <gpilz> Jeff: How many months would you like to come up with another alternative?
20:48:35 <gpilz> (Asir & Jeff): {discuss the amount of time spent on this issue}
20:48:49 <gpilz> (Asr & Bob): {discuss the amount of time spent on this issue}
20:48:55 <gpilz> s/Asr/Asir/
20:49:22 <gpilz> Bob: How much more time are we going to spend looking for an alternative? There don't seem to be any.
20:49:26 <gpilz> Asir: Not right now.
20:49:37 <gpilz> DaveS: There have been a lot of ideas and proposals.
20:49:50 <Yves> I wonder if the TAG would have an answer for this one
20:49:53 <gpilz> ... Nothing seems to be gaining traction.
20:50:23 <gpilz> Bob: Yves, are you asking for a TAG ruling on this one?
20:50:28 <gpilz> Yves: We can always ask.
20:50:39 <asir> We could ask the TAG a specific question ..
20:50:42 <gpilz> Ashok: Is this a technical question or a procedural question?
20:50:44 <asir> re teh topic
20:50:53 <gpilz> ... The TAG only does technical questions.
20:51:00 <gpilz> ... What are you going to ask them?
20:51:19 <Yves> the question would be "where does a fragment definition belong, addressing or actions"
20:51:25 <gpilz> Bob: What I'd like to do at this point is to push this off until the next call.
20:51:38 <asir> Yves: that is a good question to ask 
20:51:49 <gpilz> ... The problem with the polarization is that the fundamental point revolves around the namespace.
20:51:56 <gpilz> ... There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
20:52:16 <gpilz> ... We've reduced the issue to a very binary, polarizing choice.
20:52:30 <gpilz> ... I'm going to call around to see if there are any reasonable alternatives.
20:52:57 <gpilz> ... If we don't have what looks like the start of a reasonable alternative, we're just going to have to decide.
20:53:08 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: issue defered until next week
20:53:17 <gpilz> TOPIC: team 6401
20:53:30 <gpilz> Wu: we have a concrete detailed proposal based on Gil's approach
20:53:40 <gpilz> ...: We sent this to Gil and Geoff
20:53:49 <gpilz> ... We are awaiting feedback from Gil
20:53:53 <asir> q+
20:54:06 <gpilz> Bob: When did you send this out?
20:54:10 <gpilz> Wu: Last Monday
20:54:20 <Bob> ack asir
20:54:39 <Ashok> q+
20:54:48 <TomRutt> q+
20:55:05 <DaveS> +1 to Ashok.
20:55:13 <Bob> ack ashok
20:55:15 <gpilz> Asir: Should we use the public mailing list?
20:55:18 <gpilz> Ashok: Yes
20:55:44 <gpilz> Gil: I got Wu's proposal this Monday (5/5/2009)
20:55:58 <TomRutt> q-
20:56:08 <gpilz> Wu: Would you like me to send this to the group list?
20:56:10 <gpilz> Bob: Yes
20:56:29 <gpilz> Wu: We'd like to work this out before brining it to the group, but OK.
20:56:50 <dug> LOL another easy one
20:56:53 <gpilz> q+
20:57:20 <Bob> ack gpi
20:57:20 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/wiki/Proposals_for_6692
20:58:05 <gpilz> Gil: there are 4 proposals on the Wiki
20:58:19 <gpilz> ... they look like valid candidates
20:58:31 <gpilz> Geoff: I wasn't aware that we were using the Wiki
20:59:11 <Zakim> -Don_Wright
20:59:51 <gpilz> Bob & Gil: {comment on desireable qualities of the Wiki}
21:00:02 <gpilz> Geoff: but some of the pros and cons seem pretty subjective
21:00:08 <gpilz> ... what do you do if you don't agree?
21:00:13 <gpilz> Bob: you can edit them
21:00:29 <gpilz> ... The whole idea was simple to get the list of proposals
21:00:38 <gpilz> Geoff: that's what I thought
21:00:53 <gpilz> ... but they have "pros" and "cons" associated with them
21:01:00 <gpilz> Bob: You can delete them
21:01:09 <gpilz> Doug: or add to them
21:01:34 <gpilz> (all): {discussion about process of using Wiki}
21:01:51 <asir> q+
21:02:03 <gpilz> Bob: I do want to get to a list that we agree is a minimized list of options.
21:03:57 <Bob> ack asir
21:04:22 <asir> Asir said, re 6413 ... if we purge duplicate reps in the poll then the result is (a) is 4 and (e) is 3
21:05:59 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
21:06:01 <Zakim> -??P8
21:06:07 <Zakim> - +1.571.262.aaee
21:06:09 <asir> s/6413/6413 strawpoll/
21:06:09 <Zakim> -Geoff
21:06:09 <Zakim> -Wu_Chou
21:06:10 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:06:11 <Zakim> -Doug
21:06:11 <Zakim> -Fred
21:06:12 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:06:13 <Zakim> -Yves
21:06:15 <Zakim> -JeffM
21:06:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
21:06:17 <Zakim> -Gilbert
21:06:18 <Zakim> -Katy
21:06:20 <Bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:06:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
21:06:20 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:06:23 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, Wu_Chou, Tom_Rutt, [Microsoft], +1.702.414.aaaa, Asir, Doug, +1.408.642.aabb, Ashok_Malhotra, Katy, Gilbert, Yves, +1.646.361.aacc, +1.408.970.aadd,
21:06:26 <Zakim> ... Vikas, Fred, Dave, Don_Wright, JeffM, +1.571.262.aaee
21:06:26 <Yves> trackbot, end teleconference
21:06:26 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:06:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:06:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-minutes.html trackbot
21:06:27 <TomRutt> TomRutt has left #ws-ra
21:06:28 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
21:06:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:06:28 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-actions.rdf :
21:06:28 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Yves to generate may 1st snapshots [1]
21:06:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-ws-ra-irc#T19-41-47