IRC log of rd on 2011-09-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rd
14:57:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rd
14:57:41 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7394
14:57:42 [trackbot]
Meeting: Research and Development Working Group Teleconference
14:57:42 [trackbot]
Date: 01 September 2011
14:57:42 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_RDWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:56 [sharper]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:58:02 [shawn]
shawn has joined #rd
14:58:06 [sharper]
Chair: Harper_Simon
14:58:07 [sharper]
Agenda+ Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)
14:58:58 [sharper]
Agenda+ Final chance to comment of the Draft First Call - inc. Giorgio's Notes at
14:59:30 [sharper]
Agenda+ Any Other Business - Shawn's Notes at
14:59:37 [markel]
markel has joined #rd
14:59:49 [sharper]
zakim, save agenda
15:00:00 [Zakim]
ok, sharper, the agenda has been written to
15:00:04 [sharper]
regrets+ O'Connor_Joshue
15:00:18 [sharper]
regrets+ Conway_Vivienne
15:00:27 [Zakim]
WAI_RDWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:29 [sharper]
regrets+ Yesilada_Yeliz
15:00:37 [Zakim]
15:00:41 [sharper]
present+ Harper_Simon
15:00:48 [sharper]
present+ Vigo_Markel
15:00:57 [sharper]
present+ Brajnik_Giorgio
15:00:59 [Zakim]
15:01:06 [sharper]
regrets+ Lopes_Rui
15:01:19 [sharper]
present+ Abou-Zahra_Shadi
15:01:27 [sharper]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sharper
15:02:07 [Zakim]
15:02:07 [shadi]
zakim, call shadi-617
15:02:11 [vivienne]
vivienne has joined #rd
15:02:16 [shawn]
present+ Henry_Shawn
15:02:42 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:54 [sharper]
zakim, ??P76 is markel
15:03:07 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; the call is being made
15:03:11 [Zakim]
15:03:12 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:03:14 [sharper]
zakim, ??P78 is sharper
15:03:22 [Zakim]
15:03:37 [kourou]
kourou has joined #rd
15:03:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shawn, ??P76, ??P78, Shadi, ??P4
15:03:54 [sharper]
zakim, sharper is really giorgio
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+markel; got it
15:04:02 [Zakim]
15:04:10 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:04:22 [Zakim]
+sharper; got it
15:04:28 [pthiessen]
pthiessen has joined #rd
15:04:37 [sharper]
regrets- Conway_Vivienne
15:04:41 [sharper]
present+ Conway_Vivienne
15:04:55 [sharper]
zakim, take up item 1
15:04:58 [Zakim]
+giorgio; got it
15:05:20 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)" taken up [from sharper]
15:05:54 [pthiessen]
Sorry I'm late. Another live bug I need to fix. I'll follow the chat through IRC (multitasking) and join in on the VOIP call as soon as I can.
15:06:48 [shadi]
ack me
15:07:14 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:07:14 [Zakim]
sorry, vivienne, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:07:19 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:07:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shawn (muted), markel, giorgio, Shadi, ??P4, ??P7
15:07:26 [vivienne]
I'll have a go
15:07:51 [sharper]
zakim, ??P4 is sharper
15:07:51 [Zakim]
+sharper; got it
15:08:04 [sharper]
zakim, ??P7 is vivienne
15:08:04 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
15:08:08 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:08:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shawn (muted), markel, giorgio, Shadi, sharper, vivienne
15:08:18 [vivienne]
scribe, vivienne
15:08:22 [shadi]
15:08:33 [sharper]
scribe: Conway_Vivienne
15:08:34 [sharper]
ScribeNick: vivienne
15:09:05 [shadi]
15:09:22 [vivienne]
15:09:45 [vivienne]
shadi: should we look at call and questions before agenda?
15:09:52 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
15:09:52 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)" taken up [from sharper]
15:10:16 [shawn]
s/should we look at call and questions before agenda?/should we look at questions first, then the Call?/
15:10:20 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 2
15:10:20 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Final chance to comment of the Draft First Call - inc. Giorgio's Notes at
15:10:22 [vivienne]
SH: go back and look at seminar and participants after
15:10:24 [Zakim]
..." taken up [from sharper]
15:10:50 [shadi]
15:11:32 [vivienne]
mv: summarize last week's meeting. Looking at Wiki, Giogio edited as per last meeting and made some clarifications. Shadi made a major contribution to make the call more clear and readable - thanks. There are some concerns editors have been discussing.
15:12:19 [shadi]
q+ to respond on promoting fragmentation
15:12:36 [vivienne]
mv: maybe we could be more open when it comes to talking about guidelines - currently too tied to guidelines. We want to welcome other approaches such as people using national guidelines. Reference to authoring tool guidelines and content guidelines.
15:12:44 [shadi]
q+ to respond on guidelines focus
15:12:46 [vivienne]
mv: giogio also made changes
15:14:40 [vivienne]
giorgio: after discussing with markel & josh made some more changes to clarify examples. Made a few small changes in objectives and added a sentence in the first part of the objectives. Authors might be wanting to know what kind of contribvutions they would make to research community if they prepare a paper. Edited kind of questins we want papers to address and put in 6 bulleted points. Added
15:14:40 [vivienne]
a sentence at end regarding review procedure.
15:14:44 [vivienne]
zakin, mute me
15:15:10 [shadi]
ack me
15:15:11 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to respond on promoting fragmentation and to respond on guidelines focus
15:16:16 [vivienne]
sa: did not have a chance to look through changes previously. Looks okay to me so far. Want feel conceptually are the changes I made preferred? Tried to add more headings, more descriptive, do people agree with that approach?
15:16:19 [markel]
Shadi, I think it is very good as it is, very concise
15:16:26 [vivienne]
looks good to me
15:16:33 [giorgio]
I think we agreed with all f them
15:17:20 [vivienne]
sa: focus on guidelines: ok with focusing on wcag in which case we should go back and think about the web or web accessibility metrics?
15:17:41 [vivienne]
sa: reason I want to be clear about that - we need right expectations - website vs the web
15:17:59 [vivienne]
sa: there is a complex interaction and we need to say what part we are focusing on
15:18:13 [giorgio]
I'll be happy to measure accessibiluty of websites
15:18:17 [vivienne]
sa: there is a ? in the documentation we circulated
15:19:35 [vivienne]
sa: first point - open to national guidelines or accessibility guidelines - we should not turn away someone who has been developing metrics for the Italian version, section 508, etc. Same approach which could apply to wcag as well. Need to be careful of expression - not encouraging people to develop develop different guidelines
15:19:51 [vivienne]
sa: derivatives can cause fragmentation and we dont' want to encourage that
15:19:54 [giorgio]
I am not able to identify any sentence in ou cfp that promotes fragmentation. are you?
15:20:43 [vivienne]
sa: let's see how we can open the call up more than it is
15:21:24 [Zakim]
15:21:37 [vivienne]
giorgio: no I'm not suggestion any more changes. Should we take out the reference to the tools guidelines? (did I get this right?)
15:21:53 [vivienne]
giorgio: added section 508 as an example, but should not promote fragmentation
15:22:15 [vivienne]
all: please let me know if I miss something
15:22:36 [giorgio]
ok, we cann 'derivative of '
15:22:47 [giorgio]
i meant we can add it
15:22:49 [vivienne]
sa: was reacting to comments from editors, but if you're okay with the description there so far, that's fine
15:23:39 [vivienne]
mv: I don't think tht including some other guidelines is a problem - its enriching. One of the goals of this first exercise we re doing is to maybe see which kind of set of guidelines is more valuable or sensible when it comes to measuring accessibility
15:23:43 [giorgio]
yes, I fully agree with markel
15:25:00 [giorgio]
no, I dont agree with such a generalization
15:25:03 [giorgio]
15:25:22 [vivienne]
sa: I think you've jumped - comparing validity of entire sets of guidelines against each other. We need to be open to look outside, that's okay. In this particular call, we need to look at people who are developing metrics (maybe not even just accessibility guidelines) - need to be open, but need to be very careful not to miss some of the impact that fragmentation has on accessibililty
15:25:42 [vivienne]
sa: fragmentation of standards is hurting people with disability
15:25:49 [sharper]
ack giorgio
15:26:20 [markel]
Shadi, I didn't mean we should compare the validity of guidelines
15:27:00 [vivienne]
giorgio: I don't agree with you when you say that we might be wanting to look at metrics in general. Need to be focussed on accessibility of the website - need to be open. Read through wcag, section 508, other data from IBM Japan social ingfrastructure. We want to know about them and what works in that situation.
15:27:06 [sharper]
+1 to giorgio's point
15:27:06 [shadi]
[[Are there any low-level metrics like page size, number of images without alt tag or similar that are predictors of the accessibility of a web page]]
15:27:15 [vivienne]
sa: fair point, I agree.
15:28:06 [giorgio]
15:28:42 [vivienne]
sa: low level metrics - have seen some work done for search engine where they categorize web pages according to the number of images and number of texts. There might be some things we can learn from there. To the initial topic, I think tehcnically we're all on the same page. I may have a higher level of sensitivity about how we message talking about guidelines.
15:28:47 [sharper]
ack giorgio
15:28:58 [vivienne]
sa: mainly I believe fragmentaiton hurts accessibility
15:29:00 [markel]
15:29:56 [sharper]
ack markel
15:30:06 [vivienne]
giorgio: exasmple about low level metrics etc. are all ways that could be used to define accessibility. Some submissions would br low-level of or less relevance to webinar
15:30:28 [sharper]
15:30:59 [vivienne]
mv: our perspectives or fragmentation may be different. How we can find the good points of accessing guidelines. As a way of improving standards, that's my perspective
15:31:28 [vivienne]
sa: maybe the metrics will be a way of doing follow-on work down the road
15:31:36 [giorgio]
definitely further down the road
15:31:59 [shadi]
15:32:08 [shadi]
q- sh
15:32:25 [shadi]
15:32:30 [shadi]
q- sharper
15:32:35 [markel]
agree with Simon
15:32:49 [vivienne]
sh: regards fragmentation discussion - fragmentaton may not be seen such a good thing. could be an extension of the guidelines. Consider social needs in different countries. It might also be that the web is a heterogenous system, therefore these extensions to wcag guidelines may provide a new way to see them. We don't want to stifle people discussing different approaches that might b useful in
15:32:49 [vivienne]
their real world.
15:32:52 [vivienne]
15:33:09 [vivienne]
Have mercy on your scribe!
15:33:54 [sharper]
ack me
15:34:04 [sharper]
ack shadi
15:34:12 [vivienne]
sa: we need to have further discussions on this to make sure we're all in synch. Some of the discussion may be idealistic.
15:34:47 [pthiessen]
15:35:14 [vivienne]
sa: the idea of benefitting from a decentralized system, learn from extensions and so on - sound good but I've yet to see an example. Those I know are changing the meaning, because we misunderstand the guidelines. This can harm accessibility more than it benefits
15:36:51 [markel]
let's not promote fragmentation
15:36:52 [vivienne]
sa: japan , one of the guidliens for the jis follows wcag most closely. We have learned from them about japanese characters which has made wcag better. I've yet to see an extension of wcag tht is positive in the way you were saying - all have been harmful fragmentation. For our topic, its a matter of messaging, not promoting the negative part of fragmentation This might actually be a topic in
15:36:52 [vivienne]
15:37:17 [vivienne]
sh: yes, a topic in itself re: section 508 is a national guideline for us
15:37:27 [vivienne]
sh: shelve this for the next discussion
15:37:59 [vivienne]
sh: how we we feel about this call and the suggested changes giorgia, markel, shadi and josh have been proposed?
15:38:14 [markel]
IMO we could go ahead
15:38:16 [vivienne]
sh: are they reasonable and we can agree on them:
15:38:20 [vivienne]
go ahead
15:39:15 [giorgio]
15:39:16 [vivienne]
sa: changes are all fine so far. I may have one or two minor edits. There is a type in the first paragraph - "would not be visible".
15:39:24 [vivienne]
sh: agree?
15:39:25 [sharper]
15:39:38 [vivienne]
mv: agree - also remove the comments between the brackets
15:40:15 [vivienne]
sa: the focus - I could do that after the call - do a light edit and then can people look at it by the end of the day tomorrow and we can announce it early next week?
15:40:19 [giorgio]
ok for me; I can do it tonight or early tomorrow morning
15:40:26 [vivienne]
sh: I'm not here, so I'm okay with the editors making that decision
15:40:29 [markel]
i'm fine with that too
15:41:11 [vivienne]
sh: need to agree on dates directly and whether people would need more time - Thursdya 8 December for actual teleconference, stop people contributing by 17 November, or 10 November? We need to sort these dates out though
15:41:22 [vivienne]
sa: I am hopeful we might be able to announce early next week
15:41:27 [markel]
early next week at the latest
15:41:47 [vivienne]
sa: also need to think of time between notification and the conference itself
15:42:11 [markel]
15:42:17 [vivienne]
sa: beginning of Novembr for paper deadline
15:42:21 [giorgio]
15:42:30 [markel]
Is the weminar date fixed?
15:42:37 [vivienne]
sh: yes, gives 7 weeks or so to write 1000 words or so - a better schedule
15:43:00 [vivienne]
sa: deadline 8 November?
15:43:13 [giorgio]
me too
15:43:14 [vivienne]
mv: deadline 1 November
15:43:31 [vivienne]
Can everyone type in their dates as I'm losing the plot!
15:43:43 [vivienne]
conference 8 December?
15:43:55 [giorgio]
ok for me
15:44:15 [vivienne]
sh: 8 December for webinar, 1 November for deadline, 17 November for people to be informed
15:44:29 [giorgio]
simon's sugestions are fine with me
15:44:32 [vivienne]
sh: midnight stanard time or any times
15:44:57 [vivienne]
mv: is there time between deadline and 17 November?
15:44:58 [giorgio]
but we're talking of 1000 words papers
15:45:08 [vivienne]
sh: for 1000 words it should be okay
15:45:27 [vivienne]
mv: maybe papers - sorry Markel didn't hear you?
15:45:51 [vivienne]
sh: if there were more major problems, we wouldn't have accepted them
15:46:05 [giorgio]
I'm not sure whetehr it's a good idea to put up papers that are drafts
15:46:10 [vivienne]
sa: at w3c workshops we have position papers first
15:46:42 [giorgio]
but I don't think this is an issue we need to solve now
15:46:50 [vivienne]
sh: there might be typographical problems, point to other papers within the workshop, this is a different and unique thing
15:47:03 [vivienne]
sh: next one will be a lot easier
15:47:18 [vivienne]
sh: next time we'll have shawn's changes etc
15:47:42 [giorgio]
15:47:47 [vivienne]
sa: need people to make changes before teleconference, but put initial drafts we accept up so people can see them
15:48:04 [vivienne]
sh: we can't get people to make the changes after the conference
15:48:09 [vivienne]
sh: are we all okay on the dates?
15:48:15 [sharper]
RESOLVED: We all agree on this content (with very light typo changes)
15:48:25 [vivienne]
sa: scientific committee need to allocate a lot of time between 1-17 November
15:48:30 [pthiessen]
Back and looking through the logs now :)
15:48:58 [vivienne]
sa: we have 3 teleconference between this perod to make positions etc
15:49:07 [giorgio]
15:49:15 [sharper]
RESOLVED: Deadline 01 Nov, Notification 17 Nov, Webinar 08 Dec
15:49:34 [vivienne]
15:49:42 [pthiessen]
+1 wiki changes
15:49:43 [sharper]
zakim, close item 2
15:49:43 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Final chance to comment of the Draft First Call - inc. Giorgio's Notes at
15:49:51 [sharper]
zakim, take up item 3
15:49:51 [Zakim]
..., closed
15:49:55 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:49:55 [vivienne]
15:49:56 [Zakim]
1. Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments) [from sharper]
15:49:58 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Any Other Business - Shawn's Notes at" taken up [from sharper]
15:50:15 [shadi]
15:50:22 [sharper]
zakim, take up item 3
15:50:22 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Any Other Business - Shawn's Notes at" taken up [from sharper]
15:50:25 [shawn]
q+ to prioritize what to call them
15:50:28 [shawn]
ack me
15:50:29 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to prioritize what to call them
15:50:57 [vivienne]
Shawn: regarding comnents on email. Is the first step, what to call these?
15:51:35 [vivienne]
shawn: workshop, symposium, research seminar, research workshop etc. talked about pros and cons - top are symposium or research seminar
15:51:42 [shadi]
[[ Webinar | Workshop | Teleconference Seminar | Seminar | Colloqium | Research Seminar]]
15:52:39 [vivienne]
sa: webinar is used often in context of online training, might be a bit distracting. workshop may be closest match, but can b confusing to w3c audience. Other ideas eg research seminar
15:52:41 [markel]
colloquium sounds quite informal
15:52:42 [shadi]
[[ Webinar | Workshop | Teleconference Seminar | Symposium | Colloqium | Research Seminar]]
15:52:44 [vivienne]
sh: likes research seminar
15:52:46 [giorgio]
ok with me: research seminar
15:52:52 [markel]
research seminar is ok
15:52:52 [vivienne]
I'm okay with research seminar
15:53:46 [vivienne]
shawn: how much do you want to focus on research? It would be good to pick one term now that we can use for future events. If in the future you might want to use something that's not so much research. Does seminar indicate that there will be discussion?
15:53:59 [vivienne]
sh: symposium?
15:54:02 [kourou]
seminar indicates training...
15:54:13 [vivienne]
shawn: symposium doesn't bring up much t me - others?
15:54:39 [vivienne]
sh: symposiium too formal or academic?
15:54:49 [giorgio]
why did we rule workshop out?
15:55:10 [vivienne]
I'm not sure at all - just not workshop
15:55:35 [shawn]
[shawn *really* likes workshop generally, but it has different meaning in W3C ]
15:55:35 [vivienne]
sa: workshop used in w3c heavily to mean a full or two day event
15:55:41 [markel]
Research seminar is okay for me
15:55:52 [markel]
i would not remove "research"
15:55:53 [vivienne]
sa: if we announce workshop the typical w3c audience will be confused
15:55:57 [giorgio]
research workshop?
15:55:57 [markel]
as we are the RDWG
15:56:18 [shadi]
15:56:22 [markel]
15:56:25 [giorgio]
good point, sh.
15:56:29 [vivienne]
sh: I think symposium is a good one due to definition
15:56:32 [sharper]
symposium |simˈpōzēəm|
15:56:32 [sharper]
noun ( pl. -sia |-zēə| or -siums )
15:56:33 [sharper]
a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject.
15:56:33 [sharper]
• a collection of essays or papers on a particular subject by a number of contributors.
15:56:33 [sharper]
• a drinking party or convivial discussion, esp. as held in ancient Greece after a banquet (and notable as the title of a work by Plato).
15:56:34 [sharper]
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a drinking party): via Latin from Greek sumposion, from sumpotēs ‘fellow drinker,’ from sun- ‘together’ + potēs ‘drinker.’
15:56:46 [vivienne]
wine is good!
15:56:50 [markel]
research banquet
15:57:03 [shawn]
leaning toward symposium
15:57:08 [giorgio]
15:57:08 [vivienne]
okay with that
15:57:32 [vivienne]
mv: research seminar
15:57:33 [markel]
research seminar
15:58:23 [vivienne]
sa: another argument for symposium - good to have something we can explain to the membership - not completely new but backed by w3c process documents
15:58:25 [pthiessen]
+1 research seminar
15:58:31 [vivienne]
sh: okay with that
15:58:44 [shadi]
15:59:46 [vivienne]
sa: MV you can file an objection?
15:59:51 [vivienne]
mv: okay
16:00:02 [vivienne]
jsut being literal!
16:00:11 [vivienne]
fingers are dying here!
16:00:19 [markel]
good job vivienne
16:00:45 [pthiessen]
16:01:10 [vivienne]
shawn: regarding announcements - who can participate, do only those who have accepted paper that can participate?
16:01:19 [giorgio]
se should also see how many decent submissions we get
16:01:37 [shadi]
16:01:48 [vivienne]
sh: someone who has a definite position which is supported by science or engineering - well-found positions with supporting references as opposed to somethng that is pulled from thin air
16:02:05 [vivienne]
shawen: not research but well supported. Can others particpate besides those who submit papers?
16:02:08 [kourou]
I think it should be open to others...
16:02:10 [markel]
I think should be open to anybody
16:02:11 [vivienne]
sh: anyone can participate
16:02:26 [vivienne]
sh: anyone, like an audience at a seminar
16:02:59 [giorgio]
16:03:00 [vivienne]
I'm not sure that's clear from the call for papers?
16:03:13 [shadi]
ack me
16:03:29 [vivienne]
sa: would there be more listeners than presenters?
16:04:01 [vivienne]
sh: at this point, we don't restrict access and see how it runs for the future. Its an unknown quantity
16:04:23 [vivienne]
shawn: how much discussion vs how much prsentation. could have someone join and derail the discussion with tangents
16:04:45 [vivienne]
sh: that's up to whoever's chairing that - up to them to modify and maintain the discussion or sanciton that person
16:05:43 [vivienne]
giorgio: depends on how many contributions, submission we get. Depends also on technology for symposium, wold it be talking, or would there be some wy for sharing. Would shape ow many people we want on the conference
16:07:16 [vivienne]
sa: the technology - same as we're using now for the teleconference - irc and phones, slides made availabe in advance. Speaker says 'next slide' and everyone advances on ther own rather than on the screen. Have looked at other thngs in the past, but there is always some kind of deficiency which becomes complx and expensive. Happy to look at it for future events, but for now the default is to
16:07:16 [giorgio]
ok, thanks
16:07:16 [vivienne]
use what we're using right now
16:08:10 [vivienne]
sh: capacity - maybe not on a Thursday afternoon? - because of competing html5 group. We have quite a number of lines we can have. If I set the first week of December systems people can give the ideal dayof the week. put it on the mailing list in the coming days.
16:08:42 [giorgio]
wait: this is the cfp, notthe conference annoucement
16:08:59 [vivienne]
sa: need to add to the call also that we will be accepting on the first come/first served. If you provide a paper and its accepted you have aplace for sure. If you just want to listen in, depends on how many places available - first come/first served
16:09:19 [markel]
sure, the CFP is okay as it is
16:09:27 [kourou]
maybe a registration system is needed for participation of listeners...
16:09:29 [vivienne]
shawn: worth having 2 different things?
16:09:39 [markel]
then we can move into "call for participation"
16:09:52 [giorgio]
yes it wuld be useful for exampl to provide the program, papers, timings
16:09:59 [vivienne]
sa: just one sentence sayng 'observers maya be accepted on a first come/ first served basis'
16:10:01 [giorgio]
ok for the senctence
16:10:16 [giorgio]
16:10:19 [markel]
16:10:19 [vivienne]
sh: continue discussion next week?
16:10:25 [vivienne]
yes please
16:10:37 [vivienne]
sh: shadi can you chair next week?
16:11:05 [vivienne]
sh: postpone next week's meeting?
16:11:11 [vivienne]
shawn: 15th better
16:11:17 [giorgio]
16:11:24 [vivienne]
sh: will send out notice to postpone next week's meeting to 15th
16:11:40 [pthiessen]
16:11:44 [vivienne]
no problem - fingers got a good workout
16:12:00 [shadi]
16:12:06 [vivienne]
sh: meet in 2 weeks.
16:12:07 [giorgio]
ok, good bye.
16:12:11 [kourou]
good bye
16:12:11 [vivienne]
bye all
16:12:13 [giorgio]
16:12:17 [markel]
16:12:21 [pthiessen]
16:12:21 [markel]
markel has left #rd
16:12:22 [Zakim]
16:12:23 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #rd
16:12:25 [Zakim]
16:12:27 [Zakim]
16:12:29 [Zakim]
16:12:30 [Zakim]
16:12:35 [kourou]
kourou has left #rd
16:12:38 [Zakim]
16:12:40 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:12:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:12:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Shawn, Shadi, markel, giorgio, sharper, vivienne
16:12:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:12:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:12:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:12:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items