IRC log of lld on 2011-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:50:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #lld
13:50:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-irc
13:51:02 [emma]
zakim, this will be LLD
13:51:02 [Zakim]
ok, emma; I see INC_LLDXG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
13:51:15 [emma]
Chair: Emma
13:51:41 [antoine]
antoine has joined #lld
13:51:48 [rsinger]
rsinger has joined #lld
13:51:54 [emma]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0031.html
13:52:18 [emma]
Previous: 2001-05-05 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
13:52:53 [rsinger]
rsinger has joined #lld
13:53:17 [emma]
Regrets: Lars, Kim, Uldis, Peter
13:53:29 [emma]
rrsagent, bookmark
13:53:29 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-irc#T13-53-29
13:53:38 [emma]
rrsagent, please make record public
13:53:46 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
13:53:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html emma
13:53:53 [kai]
kai has joined #lld
13:55:06 [Zakim]
INC_LLDXG()10:00AM has now started
13:55:13 [Zakim]
+emma
13:55:32 [monica]
monica has joined #lld
13:55:49 [Zakim]
+??P1
13:55:59 [Zakim]
-??P1
13:56:30 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
13:56:38 [antoine]
zakim, IPcaller is me
13:56:38 [Zakim]
+antoine; got it
13:56:47 [antoine]
zakim, who is here?
13:56:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see emma, antoine
13:57:12 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #lld
13:57:23 [Zakim]
+ +44.194.346.aaaa
13:57:33 [antoine]
zakim, aaaa is monica
13:57:33 [Zakim]
+monica; got it
13:57:46 [Zakim]
+??P6
13:57:56 [antoine]
zakim, ??P6 is tbaker
13:57:56 [Zakim]
+tbaker; got it
13:57:58 [ww]
ww has joined #lld
13:58:34 [GordonD]
GordonD has joined #lld
13:58:40 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #lld
13:59:05 [Zakim]
+[LC]
13:59:11 [Zakim]
+??P7
13:59:14 [antoine]
Regrets+ michael
13:59:17 [dvila]
dvila has joined #lld
13:59:24 [ww]
zakim, ??P7 is me
13:59:24 [Zakim]
+ww; got it
13:59:44 [Zakim]
+jeff_
13:59:53 [jeff_]
zakim, mute me
13:59:53 [Zakim]
jeff_ should now be muted
13:59:58 [edsu]
Zakim, [LC] is edsu
13:59:58 [Zakim]
+edsu; got it
13:59:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.423.463.aabb
14:00:03 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:00:11 [kefo]
kefo has joined #lld
14:00:14 [Zakim]
+[LC]
14:00:14 [antoine]
zakim, aabb is GordonD
14:00:15 [marcia]
marcia has joined #lld
14:00:15 [Zakim]
+GordonD; got it
14:00:16 [rsinger]
zakim, aabb is me
14:00:16 [Zakim]
sorry, rsinger, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
14:00:17 [kefo]
zakim, LC is me
14:00:17 [Zakim]
+kefo; got it
14:00:29 [kefo]
zakim, mute me please
14:00:29 [Zakim]
kefo should now be muted
14:00:37 [emma]
zakim, who's here ?
14:00:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see emma, antoine, monica, tbaker, edsu, ww, jeff_ (muted), GordonD (muted), [IPcaller], kefo (muted)
14:00:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html tbaker
14:00:58 [antoine]
zakim, GordonD is really rsinger
14:01:01 [Zakim]
+rsinger; got it
14:01:07 [emma]
zakim, Ipcaller is GordonD
14:01:07 [Zakim]
+GordonD; got it
14:01:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.330.289.aacc
14:01:24 [Zakim]
+??P17
14:01:51 [jneubert]
jneubert has joined #lld
14:01:52 [antoine]
zakim, aacc is marcia
14:01:57 [Zakim]
+marcia; got it
14:02:01 [antoine]
zakim, ??P17 is kai
14:02:07 [Zakim]
+kai; got it
14:02:07 [antoine]
zakim, who is making noise?
14:02:10 [marcia]
zakim, mute me
14:02:11 [Zakim]
marcia should now be muted
14:02:14 [emma]
zakim, who's making noise ?
14:02:18 [Zakim]
antoine, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: emma (54%), tbaker (6%), ww (20%), GordonD (57%), marcia (9%)
14:02:30 [Zakim]
emma, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: emma (27%), antoine (13%), tbaker (24%), ww (5%)
14:02:44 [ww]
zakim, mute me
14:02:46 [Zakim]
+??P19
14:02:48 [Zakim]
ww should now be muted
14:02:51 [emma]
Scribe: William
14:02:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.266.aadd - is perhaps Harry?
14:02:56 [emma]
scirbenick: ww
14:02:57 [dvila]
Zakim, P19 is me
14:02:57 [Zakim]
sorry, dvila, I do not recognize a party named 'P19'
14:03:02 [tbaker]
scribenick: ww
14:03:07 [antoine]
zakim, ??P19 is dvila
14:03:07 [Zakim]
+dvila; got it
14:03:13 [dvila]
Zakim, +??P19 is me
14:03:14 [Zakim]
+ +49.4.aaee
14:03:15 [Zakim]
sorry, dvila, I do not recognize a party named '+??P19'
14:03:16 [harry]
harry has joined #lld
14:03:39 [dvila]
thanks antoine
14:03:41 [jneubert]
zakim, 49.4.aaee is me
14:03:41 [Zakim]
sorry, jneubert, I do not recognize a party named '49.4.aaee'
14:03:48 [dvila]
zakim, mute me
14:03:48 [Zakim]
dvila should now be muted
14:03:48 [antoine]
zakim, aaee is jneubert
14:03:49 [Zakim]
+jneubert; got it
14:03:58 [tbaker]
zakim, who is making noise?
14:04:09 [Zakim]
tbaker, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: emma (38%)
14:04:35 [ww]
TOPIC: ADMIN
14:05:05 [ww]
do we accept the minutes from previeous telecon?
14:05:24 [ww]
ACCEPTED
14:05:26 [jodi]
jodi has joined #LLD
14:05:47 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #lld
14:05:51 [ww]
schedule for upcoming teleconferences until end of august becase we are in process of requesting extension 3 months
14:06:10 [ww]
... final report...
14:06:18 [monica]
s/becase/because
14:06:19 [ww]
... idea of transitioning to community group
14:06:27 [Zakim]
+jodi
14:06:31 [ww]
... conferences are every two weeks in july and august
14:06:36 [jodi]
zakim, please mute me
14:06:36 [Zakim]
jodi should now be muted
14:06:38 [ww]
... still waiting for approval from w3c for extension
14:06:43 [ww]
.. shouldn't be an issue
14:07:05 [ww]
... just waiting for process to be completed...
14:07:11 [ww]
... when it is will inform on mailing list
14:07:13 [ww]
... questions?
14:07:21 [Zakim]
-monica
14:07:23 [kcoyle]
having trouble with boston phone number: all circuits busy
14:07:32 [ww]
... suggest oto hand floor to harry to introduce concept of community groups
14:07:42 [ww]
... explain how we can transition, what would be the interest and so on
14:08:01 [ww]
harry: what's going on is that people can ... w3c is doing one of the larger porocess changes in last 5 years or de cade
14:08:04 [harry]
http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/04/coming_soon_w3c_community_grou.html
14:08:12 [Zakim]
+monica
14:08:14 [ww]
... introduce more bottom up process called community groups or business groups
14:08:22 [ww]
... quick overview...
14:08:27 [ww]
... official details are linked from ... blog post
14:08:28 [Zakim]
+??P33
14:08:38 [ww]
... is aproved by w3c management and advisory board
14:08:38 [harry]
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
14:08:44 [ww]
... to give broad overview
14:09:04 [ww]
... community groups are way for any kind of people w3c members or not, to use w3c resources to create draft standards
14:09:04 [kcoyle]
karen
14:09:13 [ww]
... based on feedback from incubator groups process
14:09:17 [ww]
... IGs will be phased out
14:09:27 [ww]
... all new groups will be WGs, business groups or community groups
14:09:39 [tbaker]
zakim, ??P33 is kcoyle
14:09:39 [Zakim]
+kcoyle; got it
14:09:45 [ww]
... community groups will be made on show of support...
14:09:53 [ww]
... run until they are finished,... no defined ending date
14:10:02 [ww]
... working on standards and specs takes longer than you think
14:10:10 [ww]
... most groups have had to ask for extensions
14:10:13 [jodi]
hmm...an "end date" has been quite helpful in focusing our work and justifying our scope
14:10:29 [ww]
... and often not sure how long it will take for specs to get adopted...
14:10:51 [ww]
... general oveararching process... interesting as well... keep work experimental until point where it is adopted enough that it is justified to adopt as standard
14:11:01 [ww]
... launched sometime in june... a dozen community groups
14:11:08 [ww]
... too early for your schedule...
14:11:28 [ww]
... but then it is possible for any incubator group to transition into community group after charter inspired
14:11:42 [ww]
... community of interest groups optimised for indiciddual participation
14:11:56 [emma]
s/inspired/expired
14:12:00 [harry]
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/final
14:12:06 [ww]
... so what we've sort of done is taken open web licenses and modified so it can work with w3c license
14:12:17 [ww]
.. so what you have is license that allows individuals to do non-asserts
14:12:28 [emma]
s/indiciddual /individual
14:12:35 [ww]
... and you have a clear path to non-royalty status
14:13:05 [ww]
... make everyone in CG sign lightweight non-patent-assert and then spin into WG
14:13:17 [ww]
... incubator groups and community groups expected to more or less run themselves
14:13:39 [ww]
... business groups provide higher staff connection
14:13:55 [ww]
... because more w3c resources, minor fee if no w3c member orgs involved
14:14:04 [ww]
... w3c member becomes team contact
14:14:22 [ww]
... so example of business group,,, oil and gas industry... want to make rdf ovcab to model oil and gas...
14:14:33 [ww]
... would like w3c staff help to do this...
14:14:45 [ww]
... in crafting the vocabulary and helping put out information about it
14:14:48 [ww]
... that is the difference...
14:14:55 [ww]
... community groups have no taff connectivity...
14:15:04 [ww]
... business groups have more staff connectivity
14:15:07 [emma]
s/taff/staff
14:15:08 [ww]
... working groups have the most...
14:15:11 [tbaker]
q+
14:15:17 [ww]
... any questions on community groups?
14:15:31 [ww]
... expectation is when group is finished... would mail harry or dan ... ???
14:15:39 [ww]
... and we would set up infrastructure for it
14:15:50 [ww]
... and ask that a new scoping statement drawn up by group
14:15:57 [antoine]
q+
14:15:58 [ww]
... scoping statement would be charter as CG
14:16:02 [harry]
s/???/coralie
14:16:04 [ww]
tbaker: i wanted to clarify...
14:16:13 [ww]
... first of all maybe you could just define what a non-assert is
14:16:18 [ww]
... but wanted to clarify....
14:16:37 [ww]
... if i understand correctlu... the purpose of this new way of doing things is makeing it easy for individuals to particibpagte...
14:16:58 [ww]
... but when i look at the community final agreement it looks like an individual is being asked to say they can sign on behalf of their employer...
14:17:07 [emma]
q+ to ask about non member institutions
14:17:11 [emma]
ack tb
14:17:14 [ww]
... so i wanted to clarify to what extent they are taken as individuals or representing their employers
14:17:27 [emma]
s/particibpagte/participate
14:17:28 [ww]
harry: so actually two questions. are they representing their emplioyers?
14:17:35 [ww]
... adn what is the legal bounds.?
14:17:46 [emma]
s/emplioyers/employers
14:17:56 [ww]
... if employer is w3c member, obviously you should keep your representative aware
14:18:11 [ww]
... if you are not a member...
14:18:52 [ww]
... if royalty free agreement... can as a company verify and agree nto be bound not to assert patents rights... legally binding way... agree not to ask for any sort of warranties by implementors oft e specs
14:18:56 [ww]
... actually pretty strong...
14:19:04 [ww]
... often means getting out the patent lawyers
14:19:09 [ww]
... which can take years
14:19:26 [ww]
... as an individual... certify that not any patents in the spec
14:20:01 [ww]
tbaker: looking at doc, "i certify that i authorised on behalf of organisation below..." "commitmenmts of that organisation"
14:20:07 [ww]
... is pretty strong
14:20:07 [monica]
s/correctlu/correctly
14:20:07 [edsu]
tbaker++
14:20:36 [monica]
s/oft e/of the
14:20:36 [emma]
s/commitmenmts /commitments
14:20:42 [ww]
harry: individuals may sign pretending to sign as individuals... but could be problem in patent-heavy space... so agree on behalf of employer
14:20:55 [ww]
... this specification quite short compared to royalty free ...
14:21:15 [ww]
... if you have more detailed questions, would have to refer to w3c legal staff for point by point
14:21:26 [ww]
... if you form ig, don't have to sign until decide to push spec forward
14:21:33 [edsu]
q+
14:21:35 [ww]
tbaker: i see this as potential issue...
14:21:47 [ww]
... i think ... sometimes people participate in WGs ... more than their employers realise
14:21:56 [ww]
... because they are committe to whatever it s...
14:22:11 [ww]
... i have a lisght concern that people will hesitate when they see this...\
14:22:21 [ww]
... sgo up the line, get management involved, starts getting more coomplicated
14:22:35 [ww]
harry: if someone contributing whose management would not improve, to avoid patent problems...
14:22:54 [jodi]
As digital library grows into CS territory, there certainly is potential for patent issues, IMO.
14:23:04 [jodi]
less than elsewhere, of course!
14:23:13 [ww]
... would be best to participate ... not contribute text... even if they did... no diffference between IG process if something you think would go into a working draft, you'd have the same problem
14:23:18 [tbaker]
q+
14:23:42 [ww]
... what this allows you to do is bulletproof yourself as early as possible and give w3c higher assurances that things that come out of WG can be a spec
14:23:50 [monica]
s/lisght/slight
14:23:51 [emma]
ack ant
14:23:56 [ww]
... shouldn't be a showstopper but will forward to legall team and ask for clarification
14:24:21 [ww]
antoine: my question was about scope of different groups, CGs vs. BGs... is there a formal criterion that would classify into one or the other category...
14:24:51 [ww]
... my feeling is that library or wider cultural heritage group is not so focused in some field of technology... looks a bit like a business test...
14:25:07 [ww]
s/test/litmus test?/
14:25:21 [ww]
harry: ultimately the only difference is staff connectivity...
14:25:40 [ww]
... so that's the litmus test about what is legally enforced as regards to staff time
14:26:00 [ww]
... reason why some groups wanted more staff time... outreach and help with specs
14:26:11 [ww]
... BGs aimed at business verticals...
14:26:23 [ww]
... more of an internal question of how much connectivity you want to staff
14:26:36 [ww]
... more about fitting your neeeds than fitting a particular kind of scoping
14:26:50 [ww]
... exact same, real difference staff connectivity
14:26:58 [ww]
... if you wanted to transition you could transition to either
14:27:17 [ww]
antoine: is it possible to transition frmo one to the other... if we start as CG and then think we need more W3C staff...
14:27:20 [emma]
Comparison table of W3C groups : http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/#comparison
14:27:22 [Zakim]
-GordonD
14:27:38 [ww]
harry: we believe that probably will be the case, but haven't had anybody do that yet... haven't launched them yet
14:27:41 [tbaker]
q+ to ask whether one fee is paid for each business group, or one fee _per member_ of the business group
14:27:57 [ww]
... whole point of process is less constraints...
14:27:58 [Zakim]
+??P9
14:28:08 [ww]
... but don't want to lose the energy
14:28:22 [emma]
zakim who's making noise ?
14:28:23 [GordonD]
Gordon just joined
14:28:29 [ww]
... there will be a community council so that the chairs of CGs will have more regular meetings with W3C staff to check in on a regular basis
14:28:30 [emma]
zakim, who's making noise
14:28:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's making noise', emma
14:28:41 [tbaker]
zakim, ??P9 is GordonD
14:28:41 [Zakim]
+GordonD; got it
14:28:50 [ww]
Zakim, who is making noise?
14:28:52 [tbaker]
zakim, please mute GordonD
14:28:52 [Zakim]
GordonD was already muted, tbaker
14:29:00 [Zakim]
ww, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: emma (29%), antoine (14%), tbaker (5%), Harry? (100%)
14:29:21 [ww]
harry: to clarify, the w3c does not want ... what we're going to do to prevent that is to have regular meetings with chairs...
14:29:37 [ww]
... regular meetings to make sure groups are akien care of
14:29:54 [emma]
ack me
14:29:54 [Zakim]
emma, you wanted to ask about non member institutions
14:29:58 [ww]
... people complaining that the charter system is hard, open-ended and experimental
14:30:24 [ww]
emma: relatedly... question to confirm that CG seems to be suited to working for a community where lot of institutions that are not W3C members
14:30:37 [jodi]
+1 to involvement without having to be W3C members or register as invited experts!
14:30:49 [ww]
... lot of smaller institutions aren't able to become members... common in cultural heritage... CG very relevant for our community
14:30:50 [GordonD]
+1
14:30:54 [edsu]
jodi: concur
14:31:01 [dvila]
+1
14:31:09 [ww]
harry: practical level... more or less open to individual and non-member orgs from the beginning
14:31:19 [ww]
... make more suited to your community
14:31:25 [antoine]
+1
14:31:40 [tbaker]
q-
14:31:42 [ww]
... with BG don't ask that every member pays a fee, just that enough tho pay for staff time, then everyone else in for free
14:31:49 [ww]
emma: i see our participants are very happy about it
14:31:53 [emma]
ack ed
14:32:10 [ww]
edsu: hi... i was ... i guess... just as a context for ... following on from tom's question
14:32:12 [antoine]
but even the business group "funding" scheme could work for us as well
14:32:28 [ww]
... it would be very difficult for me to sign anything as an LOC employee with out getting the legal department involved
14:32:51 [emma]
+1, edsu !
14:32:57 [ww]
... not patent lawyers... but still a barrier... i could get through it but it would take some time... so to say it is not a barrier.. i think lot of people in similar situation
14:33:07 [ww]
... you mentioned 12 to start in june, curious who they are, some examples?
14:33:29 [ww]
.. also... that and BGs get extra staffing, can you provide examples of what services staff would provide
14:33:51 [ww]
harry: in order, not saying not a barrier, saying it is less than signing full royalty-free agreement
14:33:59 [ww]
... large companies like yahoo won't sign such a thing
14:34:14 [ww]
... these are lighter weight... have assurances they may sign...
14:34:41 [ww]
.. for people like you, i would assume you could probably get by without signing, just have to be careful... responsibility of group to make sure patents don't slip in for future spec
14:35:15 [ww]
... if you become WG you have to put something you want to put as a spec... by the time you make that suggestion you need to have all contribuors to spec to have signed agreement
14:35:27 [ww]
... so not barrier to joining the group...
14:35:53 [ww]
... don't want situation where CG makes a spec and no patent license involved and spec sneaks through
14:36:04 [ww]
... if you have concerns W3cC legal to help clarify
14:36:20 [ww]
edsu: concerned it would be a barrier... legal people need to talk to legal people, that's a barrier
14:36:27 [ww]
harry: same point... depends on what group is doing...
14:36:37 [ww]
... overview report? wouldn't require patent non-asserts
14:36:54 [ww]
... if vocabulary? if you feel vocab can be used by libraries need to make sure no patents
14:37:03 [jodi]
+1 to clarity
14:37:04 [ww]
edsu: needs to be clear what someone has to do to be involved in community
14:37:10 [ww]
... needs to be clearer than it is now
14:37:32 [ww]
harry: if produces spec... will have to sign... to become WD
14:37:49 [ww]
edsu: when they want to push it forward that's when they woul have to sign...
14:37:58 [ww]
q+
14:38:16 [ww]
harry: give patent lawyers years to go through patents...
14:38:21 [antoine]
q?
14:38:43 [ww]
... strong commitment helps companies like ibm relax a bit...
14:38:47 [ww]
... to go back to other point...
14:39:09 [ww]
... launching open digital rights, micropayments, html5... federated social web... usdl
14:39:12 [ww]
q-
14:39:13 [ww]
... wide variety
14:39:14 [tbaker]
Harry: When a spec produced by the Community becomes a candidate for getting W3C status -- that is the point at which non-asserts need to be assigned. (My interpretation.)
14:39:29 [ww]
... was your final point?
14:39:48 [ww]
edsu: staffing, what services w3c would provide to BGs?
14:40:14 [ww]
harry: staffing ... would essentially deal with ability of groups to do large amounts of outreach
14:40:38 [ww]
... e.g. w3c maintains giant database of industry... if you want everybody to use your spec... want to make sure all the players are at the table...
14:40:44 [ww]
... requires busdev...
14:41:17 [ww]
... another example is liason... would like work to be part of gameplan for rdf stack or html5 stack or etc... requires a lot of work for w3c staff to integrate your group
14:42:14 [ww]
... final is industry verticals... lots of healthcare lifesciences wanting to e.g. produce owl version of snomed, not owl experts and want to make sure it stays consistent woth owl... requires staff to do homework and make sure it fits... lot of time commitment
14:42:31 [ww]
... a bit different for each group... maybe at some point this might come up...
14:42:40 [jodi]
avoiding getting "silo'd" by being a non-profit interest vs. business interest is important going forward
14:42:45 [ww]
edsu: difference between a BG and a WG
14:42:57 [jodi]
to avoid the sorts of divergence the library has had from IT best practices in the past decades
14:43:18 [ww]
harry: WG has devoted staff time. s.t. if you are a W3C employee some percentage of your time is devoted to shepherding that work through the W3cC process
14:43:27 [ww]
... with BG smaller amount of time
14:43:54 [ww]
... with BG very much more ad-hoc... we want to push vocab out, then get staff to help
14:43:55 [emma]
@jodi I don't think it's the case here, the difference is not about being non-profit, but about the amount of work the group is asking from W3C
14:44:20 [edsu]
sorry to monopolize time :(
14:44:25 [ww]
... with some BG may require every telecon... but that might mean rejigging of the fee...
14:44:25 [jodi]
emma: I understand. My worry is that less staff attention NOT be less attention from people following the IT state of the art
14:44:38 [jodi]
edsu: thanks for asking good questions for all of us! not monopolizing IMO! :)
14:44:45 [ww]
... need to sit down with management and figure out what staff time is involved. less than a WG more than 0.
14:45:10 [ww]
... some CG say, really could have used some help... now if they do help, they are doing it as an individual basis not as their job...
14:45:19 [emma]
@jodi do you think that's the case re: the XG ?
14:45:24 [tbaker]
@edsu, you are tasking good questions
14:45:30 [ww]
... we want if certain key points come up for group, BG wants staff to devote some time to it...
14:45:31 [antoine]
q?
14:45:36 [ww]
emma: any other questions
14:45:48 [jodi]
congrats harry! :)
14:45:51 [ww]
harry: one or two things... i have to run... my brother is getting married tomorrow.. need a suit
14:46:03 [edsu]
ww++
14:46:04 [ww]
... the key is you guys will be the first group to transition after initial transition period
14:46:16 [ww]
... might be few bumps because nobody's done it before
14:46:37 [antoine]
:-)
14:46:44 [ww]
... email us, with some notice... and we'll work it out... that would be good... and we do want to see final report done
14:46:45 [antoine]
thanks, harry!
14:46:48 [tbaker]
Harry: Ideally inform of intent to transition at least one month before (extended) end of charter.
14:46:50 [ww]
... that would be great
14:46:51 [edsu]
harry++ # thanks!
14:47:00 [tbaker]
thank you, harry!
14:47:01 [dvila]
thank you harry!
14:47:05 [Zakim]
-Harry?
14:47:06 [ww]
emma: thank you, we will continue to discuss and send questions
14:47:16 [ww]
harry: .we'll be in bilbao may take a bit of time...
14:47:20 [ww]
everyone: thank you
14:47:37 [ww]
emma: few minutes more... think it's interesting to transition to CG
14:47:49 [ww]
... invited harry because seems to be straightforward process to transition from IG to CG
14:47:57 [ww]
... IGs won't exist any more
14:48:12 [kcoyle]
q+
14:48:14 [ww]
... just extend charter... gives us some some time to think about it
14:48:23 [ww]
... you guys what do you think, is it relevant
14:48:23 [emma]
ack karen
14:48:37 [ww]
kcoyle: this is complicated. i feel that we are today as an IG is ...
14:48:51 [ww]
... individuals and i don't know to what extent people feel they are representing their organistation
14:49:02 [ww]
... if we become a CG we have to have a closer connection to library community
14:49:13 [jodi]
kcoyle: do you mean that the W3C isn't close enough to the library world?
14:49:16 [ww]
... how does the w3c library community group interact with library community?
14:49:40 [ww]
emma: probably added value of new group would be to create a community taht would go beyond libraries and include archives and museums...
14:49:44 [dvila]
+1 to add archives and museums
14:49:51 [GordonD]
+1 for a, l, m community group
14:49:51 [ww]
... maybe there are other organisations that can make that bridge...
14:50:10 [ww]
... w3c has web focus, linked data but web in general that's why interesting to have CG within W3C
14:50:15 [ww]
kcoyle: been an interesting group
14:50:23 [ww]
... concern is library community already has foci...
14:50:30 [ww]
... places where its community interacts
14:50:36 [ww]
... so how does this interact with those?
14:50:45 [ww]
.. how do we integrate these activities with ongoing ones
14:50:45 [edsu]
q+
14:50:51 [emma]
ack kc
14:50:52 [ww]
emma: key question for community
14:50:53 [emma]
ack ed
14:50:59 [ww]
edi think that's a good question to ask
14:51:12 [ww]
edsu: came to mind was this report that harry is interested in seeing
14:51:30 [ww]
... when it gets published ... for this IG to communicate outwords... to other foci...
14:51:45 [ww]
... communities of people that go to these things... maybe it pops up on their radar...
14:51:54 [ww]
... people in this IG are active in other communities...
14:52:07 [ww]
... area where we could bridge different communities and do a bit more cross-pollination
14:52:22 [ww]
... emma was saying libraries and museums and archives could share a bit more with a web focus
14:52:26 [ww]
... it could work
14:52:32 [ww]
... i'm glad tom brought up what he did
14:52:42 [ww]
... depending how they spin the legal side of it it could be difficult
14:52:59 [ww]
... not just for me but for anybody i imagine that has to sign something that says they're speaking for their institution
14:53:13 [ww]
emma: actually you as LOC are more representing your institution than an invited expert
14:53:27 [ww]
edsu: i guess you're right... but idea of these CGs are to lower the bar for non-member
14:53:42 [ww]
... kcoyle would it be harder for you?
14:54:02 [ww]
kcoyle: not for me but i could see that it would be for members of larger institutions that aren't members already
14:54:26 [ww]
edsu: nice thing about w3c members is that it's already done... but people who aren't members... going to have to ... go through the legal process...
14:54:34 [ww]
... to just participate...
14:54:55 [edsu]
+1 to that
14:54:59 [ww]
kcoyle: another comment i have is if we move to a CG where we might actually be a development.. .then we have to get more library vendors involved
14:55:00 [dvila]
good point
14:55:00 [jodi]
+1 for involving library vendors
14:55:02 [ww]
q+
14:55:13 [ww]
edsu: easier for them... wouldn't have to commit to being memebers
14:55:13 [emma]
ack ww
14:55:16 [edsu]
scribenick: edsu
14:56:15 [edsu]
ww: it seems like signing these things towards the end of a lifecycle of a bit of work, isn't that a bit dangerous...if a a business tries to sneak some stuff into some work and then decides not to sign
14:56:19 [edsu]
kcoyle: it does happen
14:56:36 [ww]
kcoyle: something having to do with ebooks...
14:56:44 [edsu]
scribenick: ww
14:56:45 [antoine]
maybe worth forwarding that point to W3C!
14:56:58 [edsu]
antoine: agreed
14:57:16 [antoine]
q+
14:57:25 [ww]
emma: anyone wanting to make another comment? if not... suggestion would be those of you who are attending the LODLAM summit in june maybe you can discuss this with opeople at summit an at other institutions...
14:57:31 [emma]
ack ant
14:57:38 [ww]
... probably we need other people joining if we want to be a CG
14:58:09 [ww]
antoine: just a quick not... karen and william's point interesting... maybe send an email... would not expect this to happen but maybe it could be interesting
14:58:38 [ww]
emma: other business?
14:59:06 [ww]
tbaker: suggest that on next call we want to assign reviewers for various sections
14:59:23 [ww]
... antuo emma you agree with that? if you do that it would be good if groups working on particular sections could get them into a shape where they could go out for review...
14:59:49 [ww]
... not final shape, im sure we'll have additional discussion, that's why we are extending the charter... but in shape where we could assign reviewers next week
14:59:56 [kai]
sorry, have to leave timely. bye :-)
15:00:00 [ww]
ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next week
15:00:03 [Zakim]
-kai
15:00:10 [Zakim]
-kefo
15:00:25 [ww]
ACTION: send an email on the list to ask people to be ready
15:00:41 [ww]
antoine: if something is ready before, circulate on list
15:01:04 [ww]
... kim asks that when we are ready we send him an email
15:01:12 [ww]
emma: thank you everyone
15:01:21 [antoine]
s/send an a email/chairs to send an email
15:01:22 [dvila]
thank you everyone
15:01:27 [jodi]
tbaker: yup
15:01:30 [GordonD]
Tom: we do
15:01:33 [Zakim]
-jeff_
15:01:34 [ww]
AJDOURNED
15:01:36 [jneubert]
bye
15:01:38 [Zakim]
-edsu
15:01:38 [jeff_]
jeff_ has left #lld
15:01:40 [jodi]
tbaker: be back in 2 min
15:01:41 [Zakim]
-GordonD
15:01:41 [antoine]
zakim, please list attendees
15:01:42 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been emma, antoine, +44.194.346.aaaa, monica, tbaker, ww, jeff_, edsu, +1.423.463.aabb, kefo, rsinger, GordonD, +1.330.289.aacc, marcia, kai,
15:01:43 [emma]
zakim, liste attendees
15:01:44 [Zakim]
... +1.646.266.aadd, dvila, +49.4.aaee, jneubert, jodi, kcoyle
15:01:45 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'liste attendees', emma
15:01:46 [Zakim]
-jneubert
15:01:47 [Zakim]
-jodi
15:01:47 [Zakim]
-rsinger
15:01:49 [Zakim]
-monica
15:01:56 [Zakim]
-dvila
15:01:59 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:01:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html antoine
15:01:59 [jodi]
jodi has left #LLD
15:02:03 [Zakim]
-tbaker
15:02:27 [emma]
Meeting: LLD XG
15:02:33 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:02:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html emma
15:03:12 [Zakim]
-antoine
15:03:17 [Zakim]
-emma
15:03:28 [antoine]
zakim, bye
15:03:28 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were emma, antoine, +44.194.346.aaaa, monica, tbaker, ww, jeff_, edsu, +1.423.463.aabb, kefo, rsinger, GordonD, +1.330.289.aacc, marcia,
15:03:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #lld
15:04:07 [antoine]
rrsagent, bye
15:04:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-actions.rdf :
15:04:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next week [1]
15:04:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-irc#T15-00-00
15:04:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: send an email on the list to ask people to be ready [2]
15:04:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-irc#T15-00-25