13:01:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:01:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc
13:01:44 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
13:01:47 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
13:01:49 <ArtB> Chair: Art
13:01:56 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:02:00 <ArtB> Date: 9 July 2009
13:02:15 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0144.html
13:02:20 <ArtB> Regrets: Marcin
13:02:27 <ArtB> zakim, who's here?
13:02:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref, ArtB, darobin (muted)
13:02:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, hsivonen, MikeSmith, darobin, timeless_mbp, heycam, ArtB, tlr, Marcos, timelyx, shepazu, trackbot
13:02:37 <ArtB> Present: Art, Josh, Robin
13:02:40 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
13:02:40 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:02:42 <Zakim> +Mike
13:02:48 <ArtB> Present+ Mike
13:02:56 <Zakim> + +1.919.536.aacc
13:02:56 <darobin> Zakim, unmute me
13:02:58 <Zakim> darobin should no longer be muted
13:03:04 <Marcos_> Marcos_ has joined #wam
13:03:07 <darobin> Zakim, mute me
13:03:07 <Zakim> darobin should now be muted
13:03:44 <darobin> hsivonen: you gonna join?
13:04:00 <hsivonen> I can call in
13:04:07 <ArtB> please do
13:04:22 <Zakim> + +1.479.524.aadd
13:04:31 <ArtB> Present+ Marcos
13:04:46 <Marcos_> yep
13:04:53 <darobin> easy to tell
13:05:04 <Zakim> +??P11
13:05:06 <darobin> I can hear the trolls echoing behind you
13:05:07 <hsivonen> that's me
13:05:17 <ArtB> Present+ Henri
13:05:20 <darobin> Zakim, ??P11 is hsivonen 
13:05:20 <Zakim> +hsivonen; got it
13:05:34 <ArtB> Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:42 <ArtB> AB: agenda posted July 8 ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0144.html ). One change is to drop 3.a. (Francois' comments) and add LC Comment #2233 from Josh ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20090528/2233 ). Any other change requests?
13:05:51 <marcos> zakim, +1.479.524.aadd is me
13:05:51 <Zakim> +marcos; got it
13:06:11 <ArtB> AB: I note Henri is here
13:06:17 <darobin> new TODO for A+E: http://www.w3.org/mid/1B5EE78B-5FA5-472B-9250-AAADE4A0900B@berjon.com
13:06:24 <ArtB> ... he says he is representing himself and NOT Mozilla
13:06:50 <ArtB> MS: during AOB want to talk about Team Contact going forward
13:06:59 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
13:07:06 <ArtB> AB: Reminder there will be no widgets call on July 16, July 23 and Aug 6. Any other short announcements?
13:07:25 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: LC Comment #2233
13:07:38 <ArtB> AB: LC Comment #2233 ( http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20090528/2233 ) is from Josh. This is the only comment where the Commentor has indicated the group's response is not acceptable. We have an obligation to try to reach consensus so we will start there.
13:08:09 <ArtB> AB: Josh, would you please briefly clarify for whom you speak re your objection to the group's proposal?
13:08:43 <ArtB> JS: I can't formally speak for Nokia and I can't formally speak for Mozilla
13:08:51 <ArtB> ... so I can say I speak for myself
13:09:07 <ArtB> ... but I have talked to other people that agree with position
13:09:47 <abraun> abraun has joined #wam
13:09:58 <Zakim> + +68028aaee
13:10:30 <ArtB> AB: I want to clearly understand the current model and the objections Josh and Henri have to it
13:10:38 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, would you please briefly summarize the issue?
13:10:55 <ArtB> MC: the essence of the issue
13:11:03 <ArtB> ... the current model is too flexible
13:11:31 <ArtB> ... my understand is JS and HV think the flexibilily should be restricted
13:11:38 <hsivonen> For the record, I'm not objecting to anything
13:13:20 <ArtB> AB: please, everyone add to the minutes if something is missing
13:13:30 <ArtB> AB: Josh, do you agree with MC's summary?
13:13:35 <ArtB> JS: yes, I do agree
13:13:41 <ArtB> ... one issue is how to choose the lang
13:13:52 <ArtB> ... another is what to do with the pkg
13:14:10 <ArtB> ... the pkg fallback flexibility is too much
13:14:22 <ArtB> ... and think user will be surprised by results
13:14:55 <ArtB> AB: what is the issue for the pkg  creator?
13:15:40 <ArtB> JS: I've had some discussions off list and some of that is not part of Public record
13:15:50 <ArtB> ... but I will illustrate via an example
13:17:04 <ArtB> [ Josh looks for a log of offlist discussions ... ]
13:17:11 <timeless_mbp> ok... a german company creates a package for a company in Switzerland
13:17:54 <timeless_mbp> the package is therefore originally in German (de)
13:18:19 <timeless_mbp> they also then translate it into Italian (as some portion of Switzerland speaks Italian)
13:18:29 <timeless_mbp> and then they translate it into French (... for the same reason)
13:18:30 <ArtB> Present+ Benoit
13:18:56 <timeless_mbp> they also commission for someone to translate it into English
13:19:21 <timeless_mbp> the German company then proceeds to create an updated version which adds additional resources (pictures)
13:19:47 <timeless_mbp> yes
13:19:51 <timeless_mbp> pictures with text
13:20:11 <timeless_mbp> for reference, Nokia uses Flash for its Text :)
13:21:09 <timeless_mbp> sorry... the updated version has another resource for pears and is in turn translated for De, It, Fr
13:21:33 <timeless_mbp> another version later updates to add Bananas but the resource is only provided in De and It
13:21:48 <timeless_mbp> and finally a final version adds yet another image resource which is only available in De
13:21:58 <timeless_mbp> The user preference is Fr, It, En, De
13:22:09 <timeless_mbp> and the result is that they get pictures from a mix of at least three of those
13:22:12 <darobin> Zakim, unmute me
13:22:14 <Zakim> darobin should no longer be muted
13:22:30 <ArtB> RB: I think this is a contrived example
13:22:53 <ArtB> ... one company publishes a widget that supports multiple langs
13:23:24 <ArtB> ... think it is rare to get images from mixed langs
13:23:41 <ArtB> ... may get one or two links for a diff lang
13:23:51 <ArtB> ... which is better than no links
13:24:30 <ArtB> JS: some images are added later, not part of the HTML
13:24:37 <ArtB> ... the initial testing looks OK
13:25:34 <ArtB> Present+ AndyB
13:27:04 <ArtB> AB: I would like you Josh to follow your No email with a clear example of the problem
13:27:18 <ArtB> JS: I'm concerned about bad fallbacks
13:27:33 <ArtB> ... it can cause bad usability
13:27:53 <ArtB> ... user in one case thinks a feature is missing
13:28:28 <ArtB> AB: will you please follow-up your email Josh?
13:28:39 <ArtB> JS: yes, I can do that; will point to this discussion
13:29:07 <ArtB> ACTION: soref send an email to public-webapps that clearly identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N model
13:29:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Send an email to public-webapps that clearly identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N model [on Josh Soref - due 2009-07-16].
13:29:19 <ArtB> MC: our L10N people think this is a good model
13:29:50 <ArtB> AB: Henri, any comments from you?
13:29:57 <ArtB> HS: I am not objecting to anything
13:30:05 <ArtB> ... if this is about failure modes
13:30:13 <ArtB> ... if the L10N is not complete
13:30:27 <ArtB> ... can get a bad experience if get multiple langs for one experience
13:30:59 <ArtB> ... want to minimize the "ugli-ness" of the failure mode
13:31:15 <ArtB> AB: I see little to no value in continuing to debate the "perfect model". On the contrary, I think we need to get real data from both Implementors and Localizers and that means getting the spec to Candidate and not continuing to debate and re-debate and re-re-debate, ad nauseam the perfect L10 model.
13:32:05 <ArtB> AB: want to know our options here
13:32:34 <hsivonen> s/if this is about failure modes/This is about failure modes/
13:32:54 <ArtB> AB: I don't see a compromise position here; does anyone?
13:33:03 <ArtB> RB: no I don't think the two models can be merged
13:33:33 <ArtB> JS: what are the exit criteria here?
13:33:38 <ArtB> ... is it 2 impls?
13:33:40 <ArtB> RB: yes
13:34:09 <ArtB> JS: do these impls need to be shipping?
13:34:34 <ArtB> RB: that is difficult because the impls are shipping and difficult to change
13:35:35 <darobin> s/that is difficult because the impls are shipping and difficult to change/that would be a problem because you'd have to have widely shipped implementations and widely used content to satisfy your criteria, at which point we can't change the spec if it's broken anyway/
13:36:06 <ArtB> AB: is voting the next step?
13:36:12 <ArtB> MS: no, not necessarily
13:36:30 <ArtB> ... you can record a decision without recording a vote
13:36:49 <ArtB> ... can just send an email to list saying "we discussed this and decided ..."
13:37:02 <ArtB> ... and tell people to send comments if they have any
13:37:12 <ArtB> ... want to avoid the use of "objection" if possible
13:37:23 <ArtB> ... need to think about "I can Live With It"
13:37:23 <Zakim> -marcos
13:37:45 <ArtB> ... note that consensus is a goal and it can't always be achieved
13:37:53 <ArtB> ... must also move forward
13:38:14 <ArtB> ... can document we tried to get consensus but couldn't
13:38:21 <Zakim> +marcos
13:38:24 <ArtB> ... not absolutely required to get a vote
13:38:32 <ArtB> ... must clearly describe the issue
13:38:42 <ArtB> ... and state the proposal on how to move forward
13:39:02 <ArtB> ... and then if someone wants to file a Formal Objection they can do that
13:39:36 <ArtB> ... need to record the decision
13:39:50 <ArtB> ... and provide an opp for others to comment
13:39:53 <Zakim> -marcos
13:40:06 <ArtB> AB: thanks Mike
13:40:19 <ArtB> ... ICLWI means the group can continue
13:40:28 <Zakim> +marcos
13:40:57 <ArtB> AB: my proposal is we mark this comment as Resolved_No
13:41:05 <ArtB> ... and that we continue
13:41:12 <ArtB> ... I can respond to the mail list
13:41:21 <ArtB> ... and point to this discussion
13:41:54 <darobin> Zakim, who's here?
13:41:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref, ArtB, darobin, Mike, +1.919.536.aacc, hsivonen, +68028aaee, marcos
13:41:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see abraun, marcos, RRSAgent, Zakim, hsivonen, MikeSmith, darobin, timeless_mbp, heycam, ArtB, tlr, timelyx, shepazu, trackbot
13:41:57 <ArtB> AB: who supports keepiing the L10N model as is?
13:42:07 <ArtB> MC: I do
13:42:10 <ArtB> RB: I do
13:42:20 <ArtB> Benoit: I do
13:42:21 <abraun> i do
13:42:31 <ArtB> AB: I do
13:42:43 <ArtB> ... that is speaking on behalf of Nokia
13:42:51 <ArtB> ... Jere is on holiday
13:43:10 <MikeSmith> hsivonen, you are still permitted to express an opinion -- it's not a formal vote
13:43:20 <ArtB> AB: I am hearing quite a bit of support for this
13:44:10 <ArtB> JS: when I talk to Maemo guys, they do not like the current model
13:44:27 <ArtB> RB: this isn't a formal vote
13:44:59 <ArtB> JS: if during the impl phase, serious issues are found, what can we do?
13:45:30 <ArtB> MC: we can fix it if indeed the impl experience dictates that a change is needed
13:46:13 <ArtB> JS: if we can fix it if we show that we really screwed up, then that's great
13:46:39 <ArtB> ... but if I find out that we cannot fix even though we screwed up that is very bad
13:47:09 <Zakim> - +68028aaee
13:47:26 <ArtB> AB: one of the realities is people are alreday implementing and shipping the LC version
13:47:35 <timeless_mbp> s/reda/read/
13:48:10 <darobin> RRSAgent, pointer?
13:48:10 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T13-48-10
13:48:17 <Zakim> + +68028aaff
13:48:29 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a pointer to these minutes
13:48:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a pointer to these minutes [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].
13:48:59 <ArtB> Topic: P&C spec: Comments status and Next Steps
13:49:09 <ArtB> AB: all of the LC comments are logged in the Comment Tracker (  http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20090528/ ). There are about 50 comments. Besides comment #2233 which is still marked as Open, all of the others are marked as "Resolved_Yes" which means we have responded to the comment, and we have either implemented our response or done nothing.
13:49:51 <ArtB> AB: we are still awaiting responses for 19/46 comments: 16 from Opera's Anne van Kesteren; 1 from Opera's Martin Nilsson (#2230); 1 from Celestial Wake's Jeff Decker (#2228); 1 from Nokia's Jere Kapyaho (#2216).
13:50:31 <ArtB> AB: Mike, would you please clarify "how long must we wait for a Commentor to respond to our proposed resolution?"?
13:51:08 <ArtB> MS: there is no documented minimum
13:51:15 <ArtB> ... but the common practice is 2 weeks
13:51:37 <ArtB> ... must consider though that during July and August 2 weeks is probably not realistic
13:52:10 <ArtB> ... the fair thing is to wait for people to return from vacation
13:52:53 <ArtB> RB: in the case of Editorial comments, do we need to wait for 2 weeks, even in the Summer?
13:52:58 <ArtB> MS: no, I don't think so
13:53:16 <ArtB> ... but if there are Substantive comments then I think waiting for a response is OK
13:53:32 <ArtB> AB: Marcos, what was the date of your latest reply to Anne? 
13:53:47 <ArtB> ... or any of the commentors?
13:54:02 <ArtB> AB: I think it is July 3
13:54:09 <ArtB> MC: yes.
13:54:16 <ArtB> ... Anne's comments were not Substantive
13:54:27 <ArtB> ... we also responded to all of his comments during the f2f meeting
13:54:39 <ArtB> ... so he is well aware of our position on his comments
13:54:58 <ArtB> ... none of the other comments were sustantive
13:55:04 <ArtB> ... we did fix some bugs
13:55:46 <ArtB> Benoit: wondering if the 2 week period has already passed for the other comments
13:55:56 <ArtB> MC: I think we have addressed everyone's comments now
13:56:35 <ArtB> AB: what about #2230 from Martin Nilsson of Opera?
13:56:43 <ArtB> MC: his comments were for clarifications
13:56:53 <ArtB> ... and non-normative parts of the spec
13:57:03 <ArtB> ... AFAIC, we are done with his comments
13:57:19 <ArtB> ... I will forward his comments to the list; he may not be subscribed
13:57:35 <ArtB> ... just waiting for an OK
13:58:04 <ArtB> AB: re #2228, I asked Jeff Decker to reply to your response Marcos and he hasn't done so
13:58:15 <ArtB> ... but those were clarification?
13:58:18 <ArtB> MC: yes that's right
13:58:32 <ArtB> AB: re #2216 from Jere
13:58:50 <ArtB> ...  he won't be back for 3-4 weeks
13:58:56 <ArtB> MC: this is not blocking
13:59:17 <ArtB> AB: he was generally OK with the L10N model, right?
13:59:20 <ArtB> MC: yes
13:59:55 <ArtB> AB; it appears that we feel like we do not have to wait for any responses before making a decsion about moving to CR
14:00:02 <ArtB> s/AB;/AB:/
14:00:11 <ArtB> AB: is that true?
14:00:15 <ArtB> MC: yes, that's correct
14:00:50 <ArtB> AB: draft proposal: We are ready to publish a Candidate Recomm for the P+C spec
14:01:03 <ArtB> AB: any objections to that proposal?
14:01:05 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:01:25 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we are ready to publish a Candidate Recommendation for the P+C spec
14:01:39 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow create the Trans Request for the P+C CR
14:01:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Create the Trans Request for the P+C CR [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].
14:01:59 <ArtB> ACTION: smith work with Art to schedule the Director's Call for the P+C CR
14:01:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Work with Art to schedule the Director's Call for the P+C CR [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2009-07-16].
14:02:28 <ArtB> Topic: A&E spec: plan for LCWD publication
14:02:37 <ArtB> AB: Robin, Marcos, what is the status of the A&E spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ )?
14:02:52 <Zakim> -hsivonen
14:03:08 <ArtB> RB: I have been doing a bunch of edits
14:03:20 <ArtB> ... would be good to link to a published Window Modes spec
14:03:27 <ArtB> ... because one attr points to it
14:03:31 <ArtB> ... and that is a Blocker
14:03:39 <ArtB> ... dropped one attr
14:03:44 <ArtB> ... clarified some other attrs
14:03:55 <ArtB> ... updated preferences based on input from Hixie
14:03:59 <ArtB> ... updated IDL
14:04:08 <ArtB> ... need to fix showNotification
14:04:14 <ArtB> ... and need input from Opera
14:04:27 <ArtB> ACTION: marcos provide a specification for the showNotification method
14:04:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Provide a specification for the showNotification method [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-07-16].
14:04:51 <ArtB> AB: that would be great
14:05:26 <Zakim> - +68028aaff
14:05:40 <ArtB> AB: if Charles or a Team Contact wants to push this to LC, that's OK with me - while I'm gone
14:06:01 <ArtB> RB: as soon as I fix these 2 pending issues, I can ask for a LC decision
14:06:15 <ArtB> AB: we can use the CfC mechanism
14:06:17 <ArtB> RB: sure
14:06:30 <ArtB> AB: anything else on A+E spec?
14:06:38 <ArtB> RB: please read it Everyone!
14:06:56 <ArtB> MC: I'll review it after I create the showNotif text
14:07:08 <ArtB> Topic: WARP spec: plan for LCWD publication
14:07:15 <ArtB> AB: Robin, what is the status of the WARP spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ )?
14:08:01 <ArtB> AB: what's the next step? FPWD was published about 4 weeks ago.
14:08:08 <ArtB> RB: we haven't had any feedback
14:08:14 <ArtB> ... OMTP people seem to be happy
14:08:48 <ArtB> AB: no feedback can be a concern but can also mean everyone is OK with it
14:09:00 <ArtB> RB: well, we talked about it a lot before FPWD with TLR, et al.
14:09:18 <ArtB> ... a good soln to no feeback is to go to LC
14:09:24 <ArtB> AB: I'm thinking the same things
14:09:33 <ArtB> AB: so, is it ready for LC?
14:09:51 <ArtB> ... is it feature complete?
14:09:56 <ArtB> RB: yes, I think so
14:10:18 <ArtB> ... I do need a RNG schema but I can do that during CR since it is Informative
14:10:35 <ArtB> AB: does it meet all of the relevant requirements?
14:11:04 <ArtB> RB: the spec includes a list of reqs
14:11:17 <ArtB> AB: so I think we can say yes, it meets them all
14:11:21 <ArtB> MC: yes, I agree
14:11:38 <ArtB> AB: draft resolution: we are ready to publish a LCWD of the WARP spec
14:11:44 <ArtB> AB: any objections?
14:11:47 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:12:00 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: we are ready to publish a LCWD of the WARP spec
14:12:19 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow submit the request to publish LCWD of the WARP spec
14:12:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-384 - Submit the request to publish LCWD of the WARP spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-07-16].
14:12:41 <ArtB> Topic: Widgets Updates spec:
14:12:50 <ArtB> AB: there has been some discussion ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0108.html ) about the Widgets Updates spec ( http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ). Note we can continue to work on the spec while the PAG is still in operation.
14:14:01 <ArtB> MC: the proposal is to drop the checkForUpdate method
14:14:06 <ArtB> AB: are you OK with that?
14:14:09 <ArtB> MC: yes, I am
14:14:27 <ArtB> AB: any concerns or objections to removing that method?
14:14:30 <ArtB> [ None ]
14:14:51 <ArtB> AB: after that change is made, do we want to publish a new WD?
14:15:21 <ArtB> RB: there are a couple of other minor changes that should be made as well
14:15:36 <ArtB> AB: I can make the changes if MC is too busy
14:15:42 <ArtB> MC: yes, that would be OK with me
14:16:10 <darobin> s/AB: I can make the changes/RB: I can make the changes/
14:17:14 <ArtB> RB: I prefer publishing a new WD as it emphasizes that work has not stopped
14:17:20 <ArtB> AB: I agree with that
14:18:21 <ArtB> RB: we can ask Charles or TC to make a pub request after it is ready
14:18:26 <ArtB> AB: OK, that's fine with me
14:18:44 <ArtB> AB: anything else on Updates?
14:18:47 <ArtB> [ No ]
14:18:54 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
14:19:01 <ArtB> AB: the next Widgets call will be July 30
14:20:06 <ArtB> MS: XHTML2 WG charter will not be renewed and consequently, all of the *HTML work will be done in the HTML WG
14:20:33 <ArtB> ... that means I will spend 100% of my time on HTML, at least for the time being
14:21:03 <ArtB> ... another Team Contact will be appointed for Widgets
14:23:55 <ArtB> ... by the next call expect the new TC for Widgets to join
14:24:48 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
14:25:16 <ArtB> AB: thanks for your good work and good luck in your new work!
14:25:24 <ArtB> AB: anything else?
14:25:26 <ArtB> [ No ]
14:25:37 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned
14:25:43 <Zakim> -Mike
14:25:44 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
14:25:44 <Zakim> -darobin
14:25:47 <Zakim> -ArtB
14:25:54 <Zakim> -marcos
14:26:05 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:26:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html ArtB
14:27:26 <Zakim> - +1.919.536.aacc
14:27:28 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended
14:27:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Josh_Soref, +1.781.993.aaaa, ArtB, +33.1.77.11.aabb, darobin, Mike, +1.919.536.aacc, hsivonen, marcos, +68028aaee, +68028aaff
14:36:06 <Marcos_> Marcos_ has joined #wam
15:48:31 <ArtB> zakim, bye
15:48:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
15:55:31 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-actions.rdf :
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: soref send an email to public-webapps that clearly identifies the L10N problem you see with the current L10N model [1]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T13-29-07
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow respond to Josh's no on 2233 with a pointer to these minutes [2]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T13-48-29
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow create the Trans Request for the P+C CR [3]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T14-01-39
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: smith work with Art to schedule the Director's Call for the P+C CR [4]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T14-01-59
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marcos provide a specification for the showNotification method [5]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T14-04-27
15:55:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow submit the request to publish LCWD of the WARP spec [6]
15:55:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-irc#T14-12-19