13:30:40 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:30:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc 13:30:42 EdC has joined #bpwg 13:30:42 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:30:42 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:30:44 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:30:44 ok, trackbot, I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM already started 13:30:45 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:30:45 Date: 22 June 2010 13:30:53 zakim, who is on the phone 13:30:53 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', jeffs 13:31:07 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:31:07 On the phone I see DKA, +1.585.278.aaaa 13:31:24 + +41.31.972.aabb 13:31:51 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0010.html 13:31:54 zakim, code? 13:31:54 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 13:31:57 Chair: Jo 13:32:12 Regrets: tomhume, yeliz, brucel 13:32:36 - +1.585.278.aaaa 13:32:47 +francois 13:32:54 + +1.585.278.aacc 13:33:08 zakim, aaaa is me 13:33:08 sorry, jeffs, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 13:33:24 zakim, 278.aacc is me 13:33:24 sorry, jeffs, I do not recognize a party named '278.aacc' 13:33:45 zakim, +1.585.278.aacc is me 13:33:45 +jeffs; got it 13:33:53 miguel has joined #bpwg 13:34:27 + +0203141aadd 13:34:37 zakim, aadd is me 13:34:37 +jo; got it 13:35:34 zakim, who makes noise? 13:35:34 I don't understand your question, francois. 13:35:40 zakim, who is making noise? 13:35:42 zakim, who is making noise 13:35:42 I don't understand 'who is making noise', jeffs 13:35:50 francois, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (85%), jo (4%) 13:36:05 -DKA 13:36:06 wahhhh, why does zakim not like me 13:36:07 + +03498439aaee 13:36:11 Zakim, aaee is me 13:36:11 +miguel; got it 13:36:25 +DKA 13:38:05 Scribe: Dan 13:38:10 ScribeNick: DKA 13:38:25 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0010.html Agenda 13:38:40 Topic: BP2 13:38:55 ack me 13:38:56 Jo: Francois? 13:39:22 Francois: Kai sent a new implementation report which is really good because it turned many yellow lights into green. 13:39:23 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2010Jun/0009.html Status of MWABP 13:39:24 SeanP has joined #bpwg 13:39:30 THANKS KAI! 13:40:38 Francois: there remain a few best practices for which we are lacking implementation reports. We need to decide what we do with that. Either we decide to remove a couple of BPs form the document, republish a LCWG then jump to PR after ~3 werks -OR- we think we will find reports for the remaining best practices and we find new implementation reports out there. 13:40:50 Jo: What's your considered opinion and advice? 13:40:59 + +1.630.414.aaff 13:41:09 Zakim, aaff is me 13:41:10 +SeanP; got it 13:41:33 Francois: I would publish another LC and remove BPs 5 "auto network access" and 6 "providing means to control auto network access". I am less worried about the remaining orange lights. 13:41:48 Two questions: 13:41:54 Francois: There is number 28 - but we have 3 different partial implementations... 13:41:59 Francois: we have something. 13:42:58 EdC: Questions to clear up - how was decided an implementation was partial vs complete; 2nd: wrt BP 29 - some of those practices are recommended if you look at Apple documentation. Do we really need more implementation reports to give them substance? 13:44:04 Francois: first answer - it's an informative document so it's submitted on a declarative basis (implementors have declared that they are partial or full), when we move this from CR to PR the director may dig further, W3C members may also look at implementation reports and dig further. Nothing for the group to review. 13:45:03 ... second point: on BP29 - we already have 4 partial implementations - it would be good if we could have an independent web developer implementation report. 13:45:13 ... it would be better to have only greens... 13:45:19 Jo: Any other views? 13:46:25 DKA: I'd like to minimize the things we drop from the spec. 13:46:32 ... can we move things we drop from an appendix? 13:46:44 this seems a sane approach 13:46:49 s/from/to/ 13:46:58 DKA: and I do support the idea of dropping, going back to LC, etc... - if it means we finish the work here. 13:47:23 q? 13:47:32 q+ 13:47:47 ack ed 13:47:56 Jo: I also think we should take 5 and 6 out (tho these are important) and we should put it in an appendix because these are important... 13:48:05 Ed: Where did these come from in the first place? 13:48:07 I am pretty uncomfortable removing nr 5 and nr 6 as they are central privacy issues 13:48:44 q+ to take an action 13:48:49 Jeff can you point us to implementations of these that could provide implementation reports? 13:48:58 ack f 13:48:58 francois, you wanted to take an action 13:49:02 Jo: I think these were around from first draft. 13:49:16 Francois: I could take an action to investigate but I think you're right - they were in the first draft. 13:49:38 I will have to go look and get back to you, I need to separate webapp implementations out to reply clearly 13:50:09 Francois: Next step is to resolve on something and give the rest of the group one week to review? 13:50:10 can we hold off on this until we can get input from Adam please? 13:51:03 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by XXX then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these dropped. 13:51:36 Jeff: I think [5 and 6] are central privacy issues. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of implementations in webapp context - I need to go back and review. 13:51:47 Jo: I'm with you in spirit. 13:51:49 My point is that these two BP must have been proposed for a good reason, and we should be able to trace it to a background document prior to the redaction of the BP document itself. 13:52:22 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these dropped. 13:53:07 ACTION: Jeff to help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30 June. 13:53:07 Created ACTION-1050 - Help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30 June. [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2010-06-29]. 13:53:32 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these demoted to strong advisory note. 13:53:37 I agree w change to "advisory note" instead of "drop" 13:53:48 +1 13:53:50 +1 13:53:58 +1 13:54:02 +1 13:54:10 +1 13:54:15 RESOLUTION: If we can't dig up implementation reports for these 2 by 30 June (prior to next call) then we will drop - otherwise we will remove and go back to LC with intention to jump to PR with these demoted to strong advisory note. 13:54:28 Jo: AOB on BP2? 13:55:35 Jo: How long does it have to remain in LC this time around? 13:55:49 Francois: 3 weeks minimum 13:56:17 Topic: CT 13:56:32 Jo: We've all been celebrating wildly. 13:57:19 [some discussion of the key areas of the transition call] 13:57:47 Francois: We should celebrate Jo. 13:58:45 q+ 13:58:57 Francois: Output of call was regarding implementation reports - requires group to comment on implementation reports... 13:59:15 EdC: What kind of comments are expected? 13:59:17 Jo: Left open. 13:59:47 Francois: That's a good question. Suggest we wait and see if we manage to get implementation reports. 14:00:22 ... suggest we take this discussion to an appropriate time. 14:02:06 Jo: Allow me to paraphrase -when we discussed the nature of the implementation reports, it became clearer that we were talking about self-certification.. There is nothing we've said about implementation reports that prevents people from submitting reports with none of the SHOULDs implemented and no or little text provided... 14:02:30 So in practice, two aspects to check (formally) are: are all questions answered; are non-implemented items properly justified. 14:02:45 ... it's reasonable for us to be scrutinize the reports and check the,.. 14:02:56 s/the,/them 14:03:27 EdC: Any prospective submitters of reports? 14:04:29 jo: we should start with looking up at members of this group and then friends of members of the group. 14:04:33 Jo: Moving on - We need implementation reports from deployments. We need members of the group who deploy CT proxies to provide reports. 14:04:50 Dan: I can try to get one [from VF]. 14:04:58 Sean: I can find out if any of our customers can. 14:05:14 Jo: ... other candidates: Google... 14:05:25 Action on me to investigate CT implementation report. 14:05:25 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 14:05:38 action on Dan to investigate CT implementation report 14:05:38 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 14:05:43 as skjanldfsa l;af sl;afds jkldsfg ajkl dfas jl fa jl 14:05:47 What about the absolutely latest recruit into the group ? 14:05:56 q+ 14:05:58 I do not remember his name... 14:06:00 action: dan to stop messing around, by tomorrow 14:06:00 Created ACTION-1051 - Stop messing around, by tomorrow [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29]. 14:06:15 ACTION: dan to investigate CT implementation report 14:06:15 Created ACTION-1052 - Investigate CT implementation report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29]. 14:06:25 ACTION: Sean to investigate CT implementation report 14:06:25 Created ACTION-1053 - Investigate CT implementation report [on Sean Patterson - due 2010-06-29]. 14:06:38 q? 14:06:45 ack ed 14:06:50 ACTION: jo to see with Adam about CT implementation report 14:06:50 Created ACTION-1054 - See with Adam about CT implementation report [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29]. 14:07:15 Ed: Can we [ask] Orange? 14:07:21 Francois: We can ask them. 14:07:49 close action-1051 14:07:49 ACTION-1051 Stop messing around, by tomorrow closed 14:08:25 ACTION: francois to see with Jérôme about CT implementation report 14:08:25 Created ACTION-1055 - See with Jérôme about CT implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29]. 14:08:25 ack f 14:08:50 Francois: there are other CT vendors which were in the group - e.g. OpenWave. We should knock on their door. 14:09:00 ... I'll ping someone from OpenWave. 14:09:16 ACTION: francois to ping Openwave about CT implementation report 14:09:16 Created ACTION-1056 - Ping Openwave about CT implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29]. 14:09:57 ACTION: jo to ping dotMobi 14:09:57 Created ACTION-1057 - Ping dotMobi [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29]. 14:10:00 action: jo to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct 14:10:00 Created ACTION-1058 - Ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29]. 14:10:00 \ 14:10:13 s/\// 14:10:44 close action-1056 14:10:44 ACTION-1056 Ping Openwave about CT implementation report closed 14:10:59 close action-1057 14:10:59 ACTION: Dan to ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report 14:11:00 ACTION-1057 Ping dotMobi closed 14:11:00 Created ACTION-1059 - Ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29]. 14:11:17 opn action-1057 14:11:30 open action-1057 14:11:47 s/open action-1057// 14:12:07 s/opn action-1057// 14:12:17 ACTION-1056? 14:12:17 ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN 14:12:17 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056 14:12:26 ACTION-1057? 14:12:26 ACTION-1057 -- Jo Rabin to ping dotMobi -- due 2010-06-29 -- CLOSED 14:12:26 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1057 14:12:39 ACTION-1058? 14:12:39 ACTION-1058 -- Jo Rabin to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN 14:12:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1058 14:12:40 action-1056? 14:12:40 ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN 14:12:40 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056 14:12:55 zakim, who is making nois? 14:12:55 I don't understand your question, francois. 14:12:55 zakim, who is noisy? 14:12:56 zakim, who is making noise? 14:13:06 jo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (100%), francois (24%) 14:13:17 jeffs, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (81%), francois (4%), jo (37%) 14:13:19 -DKA 14:13:37 +DKA 14:13:41 q? 14:13:55 Topic: Charter Extension 14:14:30 Jo: In order to get BP2 into Rec we need a 3-month extension at a minimum. 14:14:47 What about just putting till 2010-12-31 and be done with successive extensions? 14:14:52 Francois: I think 3 months is optimistic. 3 or 4 months is OK though. 14:15:07 Francois: Perhaps we should just make it 4 months? 14:15:13 +1 to 4 month extension 14:15:36 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests extension of its charter by 4 months to allow the CT Guidelines and the Application Best Practices to reach Rec. 14:15:39 +1 14:15:46 +1 14:15:48 +1 14:15:49 +1 14:15:56 +1 14:15:57 +1 14:15:59 +1 14:16:07 RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests extension of its charter by 4 months to allow the CT Guidelines and the Application Best Practices to reach Rec. 14:16:19 Francois: I will do it. 14:16:33 ACTION: francois to request a 4 month charter extension 14:16:33 Created ACTION-1060 - Request a 4 month charter extension [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29]. 14:16:36 Topic: AOB? 14:16:44 Jeff's remark above ? 14:17:02 Jo: Jeff? 14:18:05 Jeff: we have a major re-work of HTML and XHTML in process that's being wildly implemented by quite a number of folks. My question was: should the group request an extension of its life to examine that? Should it be reconstituted later? 14:18:10 [a new charter would need to be drafted to change scope] 14:18:17 Jo: My initial reaction is "no". 14:18:18 Maybe we should know a) the schedule regarding the HTML5.0 process b) whether that group is going to spawn some special groups itself. 14:20:16 Jo: 2 things - it is potentially too early within the limits of our charter to comment on best practices of HTML5... I think this group is done - if there is there is room for a new mobile web focused group then its focus needs to be different... new agenda, separate business. 14:20:41 ... the landscape is very different. time for this group to pack its bags and say "we're done." 14:20:59 q? 14:21:05 q+ 14:24:40 So, to answer my own questions -- it is too early to deal with HTML5.0 and the discussions on BP will probably take place in the context of another group, possibly spawned by HTML5.0 group itself. 14:24:41 DKA: [summary: agree we need to close the WG. HTML5 still too yound. HTML5 is already looking at the mobile platform. 14:24:55 ] 14:25:24 Francois: a practical point - changing the charter of a working group involves just as much work as creating another working group. 14:25:56 but changing the charter does not have the group-formation problems as extending an existing group 14:26:06 +1 to what EdC said above - it needs to be "of" the HTML working group rather than "of" the mobile community. 14:26:36 EdC: I expressed my dismay at any procedure that is as complicated as forming a new group. 14:27:14 Jo: Taking the opportunity to start a new group might be a better things to do. 14:27:43 and it seems to me that the activity is trailing off because the current charge is winding down... and I do not see this as a "new topic"... this is still BP for Mobile 14:27:58 I'll raise the issue again later on 14:28:05 Jo: I strongly think we should not taken on any other work but I strongly encourage you to look for other avenues... 14:29:28 Jo: Thanks all! 14:29:28 bye 14:29:34 -jo 14:29:35 -DKA 14:29:36 -francois 14:29:37 -jeffs 14:29:38 -miguel 14:29:40 -SeanP 14:29:41 - +41.31.972.aabb 14:29:42 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has ended 14:29:44 Attendees were DKA, +1.585.278.aaaa, +41.31.972.aabb, francois, jeffs, +0203141aadd, jo, +03498439aaee, miguel, +1.630.414.aaff, SeanP 14:31:42 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:31:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html francois 14:43:35 RRSAgent, bye 14:43:35 I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-actions.rdf : 14:43:35 ACTION: Jeff to help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30 June. [1] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T13-53-07 14:43:35 ACTION: dan to stop messing around, by tomorrow [2] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-06-00 14:43:35 ACTION: dan to investigate CT implementation report [3] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-06-15 14:43:35 ACTION: Sean to investigate CT implementation report [4] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-06-25 14:43:35 ACTION: jo to see with Adam about CT implementation report [5] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-06-50 14:43:35 ACTION: francois to see with Jérôme about CT implementation report [6] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-08-25 14:43:35 ACTION: francois to ping Openwave about CT implementation report [7] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-09-16 14:43:35 ACTION: jo to ping dotMobi [8] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-09-57 14:43:35 ACTION: jo to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct [9] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-10-00 14:43:35 ACTION: Dan to ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report [10] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-10-59-1 14:43:35 ACTION: francois to request a 4 month charter extension [11] 14:43:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-irc#T14-16-33 14:43:38 zakim, bye 14:43:38 Zakim has left #bpwg