See also: IRC log
Jo: Francois?
Francois: Kai sent a new implementation report which is really good because it turned many yellow lights into green.
<francois> Status of MWABP
THANKS KAI!
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.
Jo: What's your considered opinion and advice?
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.
<EdC> Two questions:
Francois: There is number 28 -
but we have 3 different partial implementations...
... we have something.
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?
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.
... second point: on BP29 - we already have 4 partial
implementations - it would be good if we could have an
independent web developer implementation report.
... it would be better to have only greens...
Jo: Any other views?
<francois> DKA: I'd like to minimize the things we drop from the spec.
<francois> ... can we move things we drop to an appendix?
<jeffs> this seems a sane approach
DKA: and I do support the idea of dropping, going back to LC, etc... - if it means we finish the work here.
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...
Ed: Where did these come from in the first place?
<jeffs> I am pretty uncomfortable removing nr 5 and nr 6 as they are central privacy issues
Jeff can you point us to implementations of these that could provide implementation reports?
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to take an action
Jo: I think these were around from first draft.
Francois: I could take an action to investigate but I think you're right - they were in the first draft.
<jeffs> I will have to go look and get back to you, I need to separate webapp implementations out to reply clearly
Francois: Next step is to resolve on something and give the rest of the group one week to review?
<jeffs> can we hold off on this until we can get input from Adam please?
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.
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.
Jo: I'm with you in spirit.
<EdC> 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.
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.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30 June. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1050 - Help find 2 implementations of 5 and 6 by 30 June. [on Jeffrey Sonstein - due 2010-06-29].
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.
<jeffs> I agree w change to "advisory note" instead of "drop"
<jo> +1
+1
<jeffs> +1
<EdC> +1
<francois> +1
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.
Jo: AOB on BP2?
... How long does it have to remain in LC this time around?
Francois: 3 weeks minimum
Jo: We've all been celebrating wildly.
[some discussion of the key areas of the transition call]
Francois: We should celebrate
Jo.
... Output of call was regarding implementation reports -
requires group to comment on implementation reports...
EdC: What kind of comments are expected?
Jo: Left open.
Francois: That's a good question.
Suggest we wait and see if we manage to get implementation
reports.
... suggest we take this discussion to an appropriate time.
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...
<EdC> So in practice, two aspects to check (formally) are: are all questions answered; are non-implemented items properly justified.
Jo: it's reasonable for us to be scrutinize the reports and check them..
EdC: Any prospective submitters of reports?
<francois> jo: we should start with looking up at members of this group and then friends of members of the group.
Jo: Moving on - We need implementation reports from deployments. We need members of the group who deploy CT proxies to provide reports.
Dan: I can try to get one [from VF].
Sean: I can find out if any of our customers can.
Jo: ... other candidates: Google...
Action on me to investigate CT implementation report.
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
action on Dan to investigate CT implementation report
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
as skjanldfsa l;af sl;afds jkldsfg ajkl dfas jl fa jl
<EdC> What about the absolutely latest recruit into the group ?
<EdC> I do not remember his name...
<jo> ACTION: dan to stop messing around, by tomorrow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1051 - Stop messing around, by tomorrow [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: dan to investigate CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1052 - Investigate CT implementation report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: Sean to investigate CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1053 - Investigate CT implementation report [on Sean Patterson - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: jo to see with Adam about CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1054 - See with Adam about CT implementation report [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29].
Ed: Can we [ask] Orange?
Francois: We can ask them.
<jo> close action-1051
<trackbot> ACTION-1051 Stop messing around, by tomorrow closed
<francois> ACTION: francois to see with Jérôme about CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1055 - See with Jérôme about CT implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
Francois: there are other CT
vendors which were in the group - e.g. OpenWave. We should
knock on their door.
... I'll ping someone from OpenWave.
<francois> ACTION: francois to ping Openwave about CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1056 - Ping Openwave about CT implementation report [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION: jo to ping dotMobi [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1057 - Ping dotMobi [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29].
<jo> ACTION: jo to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1058 - Ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct [on Jo Rabin - due 2010-06-29].
<jo> close action-1056
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 Ping Openwave about CT implementation report closed
<jo> close action-1057
<francois> ACTION: Dan to ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> ACTION-1057 Ping dotMobi closed
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1059 - Ping Bytemobile about CT implementation report [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-06-29].
<francois> ACTION-1056?
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
<francois> ACTION-1057?
<trackbot> ACTION-1057 -- Jo Rabin to ping dotMobi -- due 2010-06-29 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1057
<francois> ACTION-1058?
<trackbot> ACTION-1058 -- Jo Rabin to ask dotMobi for an implementation report on ct -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1058
action-1056?
<trackbot> ACTION-1056 -- François Daoust to ping Openwave about CT implementation report -- due 2010-06-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/1056
Jo: In order to get BP2 into Rec we need a 3-month extension at a minimum.
<EdC> What about just putting till 2010-12-31 and be done with successive extensions?
Francois: I think 3 months is
optimistic. 3 or 4 months is OK though.
... Perhaps we should just make it 4 months?
<francois> +1 to 4 month extension
<jo> 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.
+1
<jo> +1
<EdC> +1
<miguel> +1
<jeffs> +1
<francois> +1
<SeanP> +1
RESOLUTION: The BPWG requests extension of its charter by 4 months to allow the CT Guidelines and the Application Best Practices to reach Rec.
Francois: I will do it.
<francois> ACTION: francois to request a 4 month charter extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/22-bpwg-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1060 - Request a 4 month charter extension [on François Daoust - due 2010-06-29].
<EdC> Jeff's remark above ?
Jo: Jeff?
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?
<francois> [a new charter would need to be drafted to change scope]
Jo: My initial reaction is "no".
<EdC> Maybe we should know a) the schedule regarding the HTML5.0 process b) whether that group is going to spawn some special groups itself.
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.
... the landscape is very different. time for this group to
pack its bags and say "we're done."
<EdC> 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.
<francois> DKA: [summary: agree we need to close the WG. HTML5 still too yound. HTML5 is already looking at the mobile platform.
<francois> ]
Francois: a practical point - changing the charter of a working group involves just as much work as creating another working group.
<jeffs> but changing the charter does not have the group-formation problems as extending an existing group
+1 to what EdC said above - it needs to be "of" the HTML working group rather than "of" the mobile community.
EdC: I expressed my dismay at any procedure that is as complicated as forming a new group.
Jo: Taking the opportunity to start a new group might be a better things to do.
<jeffs> 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
<jeffs> I'll raise the issue again later on
Jo: I strongly think we should
not taken on any other work but I strongly encourage you to
look for other avenues...
... Thanks all!
<jeffs> bye