15:32:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #text
15:32:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/23-text-irc
15:32:22 <MichaelC> scribe: janina
15:32:28 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make log public
15:32:35 <Zakim> +??P18
15:32:35 <MichaelC> chair: Judy_Brewer
15:32:46 <MichaelC> zakim, wgbh is Geoff_Freed
15:32:49 <Zakim> +Geoff_Freed; got it
15:32:49 <Marco_Ranon> zakim, ??P18
15:32:50 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P18 is Marco_Ranon
15:32:50 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P18', Marco_Ranon
15:32:54 <Zakim> +Marco_Ranon; got it
15:32:57 <Marco_Ranon> zakim, ??P18 is me
15:32:58 <Zakim> +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:33:02 <Zakim> I already had ??P18 as Marco_Ranon, Marco_Ranon
15:33:05 <richardschwerdtfe> richardschwerdtfe has joined #text
15:33:09 <Zakim> +Lynn_Holdsworth
15:34:06 <janina> zakim, agenda?
15:34:06 <Zakim> I see 13 items remaining on the agenda:
15:34:07 <Zakim> 11. Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going forward [from judy]
15:34:10 <Zakim> 12. Revisit approach for drafting, discussing, polishing, and consensing text-alternative re-open requests and change proposals [from judy]
15:34:13 <Judy_> Judy_ has joined #text
15:34:14 <Zakim> 13. Relevant W3C Process, HTML WG decision process, TF process, and WG schedule http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html to monitor during Last Call;
15:34:19 <Zakim> ... propose review and discussion in TF [from judy]
15:34:19 <janina> zakim, take up item 11
15:34:21 <Zakim> 14. Review survey results on change proposal and formal objection on longdesc http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20110519_longdesc/results and confirm next steps [from judy]
15:34:26 <Zakim> 15. Status check and discussion schedule for all other text alternative re-open requests and change proposals [from judy]
15:34:29 <Zakim> 16. title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes [from judy]
15:34:32 <Judy_> zakim, who's here?
15:34:33 <Zakim> 17. meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion [from judy]
15:34:35 <Zakim> 18. role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion [from judy]
15:34:37 <Zakim> 19. figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion [from judy]
15:34:39 <Zakim> 20. poster-alt: check new approach, discussion [from judy]
15:34:41 <Zakim> 21. location of normative guidance on alt: needs write-up [from judy]
15:34:44 <Zakim> 22. Other business? [from judy]
15:34:45 <Zakim> 23. Confirm actions, timelines, next meetings (note US 30 May holiday); identify next scribe; adjourn. [from judy]
15:34:49 <Zakim> agendum 11. "Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going forward" taken up [from judy]
15:34:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see JF, Geoff_Freed, Janina_Sajka, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Marco_Ranon, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Lynn_Holdsworth
15:34:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see Judy_, richardschwerdtfe, RRSAgent, JF, MichaelC, LynnH_RNIB, janina, Marco_Ranon, gfreed, Zakim
15:35:05 <LynnH_RNIB> Zakim, mute me
15:35:05 <Zakim> sorry, LynnH_RNIB, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:35:23 <janina> zakim, take up item 11
15:35:23 <Zakim> agendum 11. "Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going forward" taken up [from judy]
15:35:28 <Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0504.html
15:35:48 <LynnH_RNIB> Zakim, Lynn_Holdsworth is me
15:35:48 <Zakim> +LynnH_RNIB; got it
15:36:04 <LynnH_RNIB> Zakim, mute me
15:36:04 <Zakim> LynnH_RNIB should now be muted
15:36:40 <janina> jb: Our longdesc cp and accompanying formal objection did help put an expidited mtg together
15:37:01 <janina> jb: Included, html chairs, W3C Director, Philippe, Judy, Janina, and team contacts
15:37:18 <janina> jb: Looked at issues going forward
15:37:25 <janina> jb: Also, W3C CEO in mtg
15:37:49 <janina> jb: Lack of progress of a11y issues in html was the primary concern for discussion
15:38:13 <Marco_Ranon> zakim, mute me
15:38:13 <Zakim> Marco_Ranon should now be muted
15:38:15 <janina> jb: As for results, strong view that LC should go forward for reasons of getting external review
15:38:28 <Zakim> +??P4
15:38:33 <janina> jb: Regretably, W3C doesn't have a separate category for this kind of call
15:39:01 <janina> jb: Remaining a11y concerns will be flagged in the lc publication
15:39:10 <Leonie_Watson> Leonie_Watson has joined #Text
15:39:44 <janina> jb: Also, we didn't want a11y issues disadvantaged by not getting timely review, so looked again at publishing updated WD when there's progress
15:40:01 <janina> jb: Not an absolute agreement on how that happens, but a shared concern that it happen
15:40:23 <janina> jb: Discussed getting clarifications before HTML surveys go out
15:40:45 <janina> jb: Acknowledgement that more timely response to recommendations is important
15:41:07 <janina> jb: the sometimes year long lag between TF recommendation and announced decision was acknowledged as disadvantageous to a11y
15:41:51 <janina> jb: Not ideal, but a better situation than before.
15:42:06 <janina> jb: Also, we're looking for additional resources to help
15:43:03 <janina> jb: Also, the LC publication, to clarify the actual status, will note that another last call may occur
15:43:11 <janina> jb: There will not be claim of feature completeness
15:43:35 <richardschwerdtfe> q+
15:43:40 <janina> jb: Purpose is to get docs out for review, but without illusions that this is at all complete
15:44:34 <janina> rs: I noted many outstanding a11y issues in my vote
15:44:47 <janina> rs: Was process discussed? Editor signoff is a problem ongoing
15:44:56 <janina> jb: Three main discussion points ...
15:45:17 <janina> jb: 1.) Messaging; 2) Updated Pub; 3.) Process Improvements
15:45:53 <janina> jb: Janina and I flagged several process items to discuss; some we had to go into detail so didn't get to everything
15:46:12 <janina> jb: Most focus went on timing on decisions, ...
15:46:39 <janina> jb: Need for coordination discussions, noting that we had requested and been denied such
15:47:11 <janina> jb: Clarifications of issues before they survey, perhaps discussions with chairs before survey
15:47:23 <janina> jb: With respect to working with the editor, nothing specific sorted out
15:47:38 <janina> jb: There are things I want to look at in that, and I invite everyone to flag and help
15:47:51 <janina> rs: an example, in the case of canvas ...
15:48:07 <janina> rs: we put in a cp; Ian countered; OK so far, though Ian always waits to last minute
15:48:23 <janina> rs: Chairs reviewed and reached a decision ...
15:48:45 <JF> +1
15:48:53 <JF> (+1 to Rich's comment)
15:48:55 <janina> rs: Editor came back saying "he couldn't make those changes in good conscious." How is that allowed?
15:49:31 <janina> jb: That's exactly the kind of thing I want to track much more carefully, though I don't want to spend much time on specific examples just now
15:49:41 <janina> jb: Please send such to me, Michael, and Janina
15:50:02 <janina> jb: We would be happy to have a specific list of such things
15:51:58 <janina> jb: Two more things to flag ...  Both relevant to our next steps
15:52:40 <janina> jb: Part of the rationale for LC is that external reviews might help with many things including a11y support. I challenged that because the feedback is not likely to be as technical as they tend to ask for
15:53:06 <janina> jb: Nevertheless, we need to encourage feedback, but ask for substantive feedback, e.g. use cases; technical responses
15:54:15 <janina> jb: Second, we need to make sure our cp's are strong and well formulated
15:54:49 <janina> jb: While this assessment may be heavily compromised by the extreme delay between recommendation and decision, this should nevertheless be a focus for us
15:55:06 <JF> +q
15:55:11 <janina> jb: We may have the opportunity for additional review and perhaps help on this
15:55:15 <Judy_> ack r
15:55:20 <janina> jb: Do we want to hold off to make our cps stronger?
15:55:47 <janina> jf: Curious of offers for additional help on preparing cp's. Specific names? Can we approach with current work?
15:56:16 <janina> jb: Can't give name now, though have at least one name already, and will be chatting probably Tuesday with them
15:56:52 <janina> jb: It was noted that there a number of large corporate W3C members who won't be able to use HTML 5 until a11y is properly addressed
15:57:43 <janina> jb: So, we may want to take a few weeks to scrub up our CP's, even once we've consensed, just to tighten them and allow for pre-consult
15:58:14 <janina> jb: Note: Chairs were strong that anything they offered to consult with us, would be generally available to others in the WG
15:58:22 <janina> jb: My view is that it would help all around
15:58:31 <janina> rs: What about not understanding how things work?
15:58:52 <janina> jb: We discussed how we shouldn't need to guess what they understand, and don't about how a11y works in html
15:59:18 <janina> jb: Tim was strong in encouraging better use of available skills, etc
15:59:53 <janina> jb: Any more questions about this mtg in Bilbao?
16:00:01 <Judy_> s/Tim was strong in encouraging better use of available skills/Tim spoke about the importance of relying on expertise in the W3C environment/
16:00:04 <Zakim> -??P4
16:00:19 <janina> zakim, next item
16:00:19 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, janina
16:00:26 <janina> q?
16:00:31 <janina> ack jf
16:00:34 <janina> q?
16:00:41 <janina> zakim, next item
16:00:41 <Zakim> agendum 12. "Revisit approach for drafting, discussing, polishing, and consensing text-alternative re-open requests and change proposals" taken up [from judy]
16:00:59 <janina> jb: Want to check reactions on this ...
16:01:11 <janina> jb: How do people feel on this? Do we want to avail of this?
16:02:07 <JF> Janina: I believe we are greatly under-resourced here, so yes technical expertise on writing these change proposals would be greatly appreciated
16:02:26 <JF> +q
16:02:27 <janina> jb: Means perhaps additional stages for us
16:03:01 <janina> jf: So a question of timing, and available time ...
16:03:11 <janina> jf: I know I have outstanding items,
16:03:30 <janina> jf: So if we have things ready for an editor, assuming these are also busy people
16:03:36 <janina> jf: How does that factor?
16:03:56 <janina> jb: One agendum is the timeline, and I will propose we need to watch that carefully
16:03:57 <Zakim> +??P3
16:04:07 <janina> jb: Don't have details at the moment
16:04:40 <Judy_> zakim, who's here?
16:04:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see JF, Geoff_Freed, Janina_Sajka, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Marco_Ranon (muted), Rich_Schwerdtfeger, LynnH_RNIB (muted), ??P3
16:04:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see Leonie_Watson, Judy_, richardschwerdtfe, RRSAgent, JF, MichaelC, LynnH_RNIB, janina, Marco_Ranon, gfreed, Zakim
16:04:43 <JF> (From Steve F via email: Regrets my Internet connection has failed.
16:04:45 <JF> Sent from my iPhone)
16:05:10 <LynnH_RNIB> Zakim, ??P3 is Leonie_Watson
16:05:10 <Zakim> +Leonie_Watson; got it
16:06:12 <JF> +q
16:06:20 <janina> jb: So, we might encourage Steve and Laura at this point on this, to position them optimally, want to know how people feel about that
16:07:00 <janina> jf: Several of our alt items have been broken into separate items, yet it's a response to a single decision
16:07:21 <janina> jf: So, is it a question of keeping them separate? Filing bugs and escalating to issues at this point?
16:07:55 <janina> jb: We've already agreed to send as separate items
16:08:02 <janina> jf: They're not being tracked that way ...
16:08:09 <janina> jb: Ah ...
16:09:27 <janina> jb: part of the problem may be that we don't have consensus about moving each piece forward
16:09:36 <janina> jf: which is why i suggest splitting them out
16:10:17 <janina> jb: Don't care how they're tracked, but they need to be tracked within the next few hours
16:12:16 <janina> mc: will help get bugzilla entries for alt
16:12:24 <janina> jb: anything else on this topic?
16:12:52 <janina> jf: If we get those logged, and a11ytf key word, an email to chairs ...
16:13:12 <janina> jb: They agreed to this immediately as they were already planning on this, and have emailed us checking whether they're list comports with ours
16:14:31 <janina> janina: If we do what we are allowed, bugzilla, then identify to the Chairs our issues in email, we've done our due dillegence
16:14:50 <janina> jb: We'll at list in email, if not more
16:15:22 <janina> jb: Any objection with my approaching Steve and Laura re additional review before moving cps forward?
16:15:29 <JF> +1
16:15:47 <janina> rs: We have some text to strike, is that doable?
16:16:09 <janina> jb: I believe Laura is eager, we had asked to freeze text during the past weeks, but I think this can move
16:16:20 <janina> jb: We have this on the agenda
16:16:25 <janina> zakim, next item
16:16:25 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, janina
16:16:30 <janina> q?
16:16:31 <Judy_> ack j
16:16:37 <janina> zakim, next item
16:16:37 <Zakim> agendum 13. "Relevant W3C Process, HTML WG decision process, TF process, and WG schedule http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html to monitor during Last
16:16:41 <Zakim> ... Call; propose review and discussion in TF" taken up [from judy]
16:16:52 <Zakim> -Marco_Ranon
16:17:37 <Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html
16:17:50 <janina> jb: Suggest for js and ms that there be some people tasked to look at the TF consensus process, to look for anything that might impact the ability of TF to handle consensus better
16:18:24 <janina> jb: Note that the WG timeline is tight, lc itself is 10 weeks, with additional steps
16:18:43 <janina> jb: Please look at this and respond at TF level as needed. We need to look to meet the timeline
16:19:11 <janina> rs: See 'entering comments,' is that bugs?
16:19:22 <janina> jb: Don't know, but that's the kind of question we need to satisfy
16:19:39 <janina> jb: what and when -- we need to be clear
16:19:56 <janina> jb: if we think the timeline won't work, we can challenge it and should, but we need to be ready to defend that
16:20:06 <janina> jb: Noting some dates are the wrong year ...
16:20:23 <janina> rs: We just did lc with aria, and many of our comments weren't necessarily "bugs."
16:20:23 <JF> +q
16:20:37 <janina> jb: Should TF invite a Chair to take this up with us
16:20:56 <janina> action: Janina to request a TF session on LC timeline for questions and clarifications
16:21:16 <janina> jf: If we do a challenge, how quickly?
16:21:39 <janina> jb: Again, let's assign a few people to study several process questions, lc timeline, tf consensus, etc., should be priority
16:21:46 <janina> jb: that's not this subteam
16:22:08 <janina> rs: Notes he'll be away for two weeks
16:22:21 <janina> jb: Please forward questions ...
16:22:38 <janina> jb: Any volunteers for subteam
16:22:58 <janina> janina +self
16:23:07 <Judy_> agenda?
16:23:28 <janina> zakim, next item
16:23:45 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, janina
16:23:51 <janina> q?
16:23:54 <janina> ack jf
16:23:58 <janina> zakim, next item
16:23:58 <Zakim> agendum 14. "Review survey results on change proposal and formal objection on longdesc http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20110519_longdesc/results and confirm next steps" taken
16:24:02 <Zakim> ... up [from judy]
16:24:11 <janina> jb: Encourages people to check wbs results
16:24:38 <janina> jb: Appreciate participation we had on this
16:27:05 <janina> jb: Anyone have comments pending on longdesc cp?
16:27:16 <janina> [silence]
16:27:57 <Judy_> judy hearing no additional comments -- and that we should encourage Laura to review and incorporate feedback from survey, and then bring it back to text-alternatives subgroup for re-consensus
16:28:27 <Judy_> janina: but not to leave open for any length of time
16:28:51 <Judy_> judy will be checking on time considerations under the new timeline from co-chairs
16:28:59 <Judy_> agenda?
16:29:41 <janina> zakim, next item
16:29:41 <Zakim> agendum 15. "Status check and discussion schedule for all other text alternative re-open requests and change proposals" taken up [from judy]
16:30:11 <janina> jb: There are several items continuing in the agenda, before we go into the details ...
16:30:28 <janina> jb: Title inAlt, Steve has updated based on questions from Maciej
16:30:40 <JF> Steve's re-submission: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2
16:30:44 <janina> jb: I believe we should encourage that be reviewed and consensed by this Subteam
16:32:47 <janina> jb: We should then ask Steve if he thinks it should be reviewed here, and whether additional cp help would be helpful
16:33:02 <janina> jb: Believe this is more important than pushing for an immediate survey on this
16:33:11 <janina> zakim, next item
16:33:11 <Zakim> agendum 16. "title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes" taken up [from judy]
16:33:41 <janina> see the above ...
16:33:44 <janina> zakim, next item
16:33:44 <Zakim> agendum 16 was just opened, janina
16:33:51 <janina> zakim, close item 16
16:33:51 <Zakim> agendum 16, title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes, closed
16:33:54 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:33:55 <janina> zakim, next item
16:33:55 <Zakim> 17. meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion [from judy]
16:33:57 <Zakim> agendum 17. "meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion" taken up [from judy]
16:35:56 <JF> JF: I am supposed to be taking Leif's emails, etc.. I have started a wiki page to make this into a Change Proposal, which I have not had a chance to do
16:36:20 <JF> JB: trying to figure out the consensus approach on this topic, seemed that JF and Leif were on the same track
16:37:00 <janina> jf: Leif and I are pretty much in sync ...
16:37:06 <Judy_> s/seemed that/wondering whether/
16:37:20 <janina> jf: Now using generator string to do something that it wasn't designed for
16:37:24 <Zakim> -Leonie_Watson
16:37:29 <janina> jf: essentially provides an excuse to ignore alt
16:37:42 <Laura> Laura has joined #text
16:37:56 <janina> jf: Leif was going deeper than I thought was required, but think we're pretty much in agreement
16:38:13 <janina> jb: So no concern about consensus?
16:38:15 <janina> jf: Not at all
16:38:23 <janina> zakim, next item
16:38:23 <Zakim> agendum 18. "role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion" taken up [from judy]
16:39:01 <janina> jb: Rich, you and Cynthia had discussion on this, but not full agreement. Is that correct?
16:39:07 <janina> jb: Can you update?
16:39:34 <janina> rs: We didn't want presentation on the body tag
16:39:55 <Judy> s/but not full agreement/and agreed on some bugs, but some people felt more than bugs needed/
16:40:20 <janina> rs: Re aria presentation it'll
16:40:20 <Zakim> +Laura_Carlson
16:40:41 <janina> rs: agreement that redundant alt="" was ok
16:40:54 <janina> rs: agreed to let it go as it was
16:41:15 <Laura> okay
16:41:44 <janina> rs: question as to whether validator should flag role=presentation but alt is non-null
16:42:23 <janina> rs: Most content today is client generated, so validator doesn't buy us much
16:43:05 <janina> rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitor
16:43:32 <janina> rs: presentation plus null alt is redundant, but backward compatibility is supported that way
16:44:12 <janina> jb: But no reopen request?
16:44:17 <janina> rs: Yes, that's my view
16:44:19 <janina> +2
16:44:27 <JF> +1
16:44:50 <janina> rs: Can those bugs be filed soon?
16:45:17 <janina> rs: Think we let it go as is
16:45:22 <janina> jb: So no bugs now
16:45:25 <janina> rs: Correct
16:45:33 <Judy> agenda?
16:45:55 <janina> zakim, close item 18
16:45:55 <Zakim> agendum 18, role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion, closed
16:45:57 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:45:59 <Zakim> 19. figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion [from judy]
16:47:02 <janina> jb: Reviewing earlier items for Laura ...
16:47:20 <Judy> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20110519_longdesc/results
16:47:22 <janina> jb: Specifically re longdesc feedback that came in
16:47:33 <janina> lc: Absolutely can reopen and move forward
16:47:38 <janina> jb: Needs to be a short time
16:47:56 <janina> jb: Then stabilize again and return to TF to check consensus
16:48:00 <janina> lc: Can do by Thursday
16:48:13 <janina> jb: May make sens for this meeting next
16:49:28 <janina> jb: Would you be willing to avail of the additional process help even though is a well developed proposal, perhaps the best developed?
16:49:32 <janina> l;c: happy to take input
16:49:39 <janina> jb: Can discuss this with youf urther
16:49:54 <janina> lc: Who is the engineer?
16:50:05 <janina> jb: Not yet met with them, will advise if I think it's a good match
16:50:54 <janina> jb: Chairs had said their plan was to survey longdesc as soon as the lc is published
16:51:33 <janina> lc: can be concurrent
16:51:48 <janina> jb: May make sense to wait a week or so to avoid proliferation of counter proposals, if possible
16:52:09 <janina> lc: sounds fine
16:52:17 <janina> jb: will ask them to NOT send a call now
16:52:51 <Laura> have to go now. bye
16:52:54 <janina> zakim, take up item 20
16:52:54 <Zakim> agendum 20. "poster-alt: check new approach, discussion" taken up [from judy]
16:53:02 <Zakim> -Laura_Carlson
16:53:07 <janina> jf: Has been in discussion in Media
16:53:23 <janina> jf: Appear to have reached a solution that appears to meet all our reqs
16:53:31 <janina> jf: want aria and uawg to check
16:53:39 <janina> jf: there are multiple pieces
16:53:58 <janina> jf: based on aria-describedby; describing video and the static image separately
16:54:14 <janina> jf: possibly no ua today, but looks like should meet need
16:54:31 <janina> jf: I still have this logged as formal objection, but this may supercede
16:54:38 <janina> jb: you'll leave the fo in place?
16:54:44 <janina> jf: yes, no reason to pull at this time
16:55:18 <janina> jb: Does this belong under text? Or should go back to Media?
16:55:24 <janina> jf: Think it should stay with both
16:56:02 <janina> janina: we're covering new things that benefit from wider review
16:56:14 <janina> jb: looking forward to the day we can say: "look at all these new a11y things"
16:56:24 <janina> jf: do have a timeline question, 
16:56:44 <janina> jf: want to make sure we stay in the timeline, as it's not going to be in lc
16:57:03 <janina> zakim, take up item 19
16:57:03 <Zakim> agendum 19. "figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion" taken up [from judy]
16:57:37 <janina> jb: Still side discussion going on as to whether there is, oris not, "new" evidence, so that we might speak as one voice
16:57:38 <Zakim> -JF
16:57:53 <janina> jb: We should be OK in a few weeks on this
16:58:13 <Judy> s/should be OK/should know/
16:58:16 <janina> jb: we'll need to check for consensus
16:58:29 <janina> zakim, take up item 21
16:58:29 <Zakim> agendum 21. "location of normative guidance on alt: needs write-up" taken up [from judy]
16:58:48 <janina> jb: a fair amount of discussion in the survey on this -- the html spec pub survey
16:59:16 <janina> rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitorhttp://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/results
17:00:03 <janina> jb: believe we have consensus on this, but getting to this issue has been a problem, looking for people to help work on this?
17:00:42 <janina> jb: Perhaps Steve and Michael ... Others?
17:00:42 <Zakim> -Geoff_Freed
17:00:44 <janina> janina +1
17:00:47 <LynnH_RNIB> I need to go now - bye
17:00:56 <Zakim> -Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:00:59 <Zakim> -LynnH_RNIB
17:01:09 <richardschwerdtfe> regrets for the next 2 weeks
17:01:21 <richardschwerdtfe> Rich: regrets for the next two weeks
17:01:37 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
17:01:37 <Judy> zakim, who's here?
17:01:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Janina_Sajka, Judy
17:01:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see Judy, richardschwerdtfe, RRSAgent, MichaelC, janina, Zakim
17:01:40 <janina> jb: Janina may be chairing next few meetings, and we'll look to a rotating scribe list?
17:01:47 <Zakim> -Judy
17:01:47 <janina> zakim, bye
17:01:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #text
17:01:48 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were JF, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Geoff_Freed, Marco_Ranon, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, LynnH_RNIB, Leonie_Watson,
17:01:53 <Zakim> ... Laura_Carlson
17:02:00 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
17:02:07 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/23-text-minutes.html janina
17:18:17 <janina> janina has left #text
17:40:15 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #text