IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-05-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:25:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:25:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
19:27:58 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:21 [Zakim]
19:29:30 [Zakim]
19:29:42 [Bob]
19:29:55 [Zakim]
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]
19:31:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.642.aabb
19:31:33 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:32:07 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
19:36:01 [Bob]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
19:52:51 [gpilz]
... They are kind of connected, right?
19:52:56 [gpilz]
Geoff: Yes.
19:53:16 [Katy]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:03:47 [dug]
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]
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]
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]
20:27:17 [Yves]
f e g d
20:27:18 [li]
20:27:19 [DaveS]
Fujitsu: a, b, d, e, g
20:27:21 [Katy]
a d b g
20:27:23 [Wu]
20:27:34 [Ashok]
20:27:41 [Vikas]
20:27:43 [asir]
20:28:31 [TomRutt]
a, b, d, e, g
20:29:30 [gpilz]
b, a, d, e
20:30:37 [jeffm]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:54:48 [TomRutt]
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]
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]
20:57:20 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:57:20 [gpilz]
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]
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]
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]
21:06:01 [Zakim]
21:06:07 [Zakim]
- +1.571.262.aaee
21:06:09 [asir]
s/6413/6413 strawpoll/
21:06:09 [Zakim]
21:06:09 [Zakim]
21:06:10 [Zakim]
21:06:11 [Zakim]
21:06:11 [Zakim]
21:06:12 [Zakim]
21:06:13 [Zakim]
21:06:15 [Zakim]
21:06:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:06:17 [Zakim]
21:06:18 [Zakim]
21:06:20 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:06:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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 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 :
21:06:28 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Yves to generate may 1st snapshots [1]
21:06:28 [RRSAgent]
recorded in