14:20:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rd
14:20:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rd-irc
14:20:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:20:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rd
14:20:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7394
14:20:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_RDWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 40 minutes
14:20:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Research and Development Working Group Teleconference
14:20:28 <trackbot> Date: 15 September 2011
14:47:03 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Sep/0025.html
14:47:07 <shadi> chair: Shadi
14:47:32 <shadi> agenda+ Welcome and logistics
14:47:34 <shadi> agenda+ CFP Finalisation and Release
14:54:21 <Zakim> WAI_RDWG()11:00AM has now started
14:54:28 <Zakim> +??P7
14:55:57 <Mario-Batusic> Mario-Batusic has joined #rd
14:58:19 <pthiessen> pthiessen has joined #rd
14:59:02 <christos> christos has joined #rd
14:59:45 <giorgio> giorgio has joined #rd
14:59:50 <Zakim> +??P59
15:00:06 <Zakim> +??P63
15:00:10 <giorgio> who is here
15:00:12 <giorgio> zakim, who is here
15:00:18 <Zakim> giorgio, you need to end that query with '?'
15:00:29 <giorgio> zakim, who is here?
15:00:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P7, ??P59, ??P63
15:00:30 <pthiessen> Hello just joined on Zakim (peter)
15:00:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see giorgio, christos, pthiessen, Mario-Batusic, Zakim, RRSAgent, shadi, Mate, nonge_, trackbot
15:00:54 <markel> markel has joined #rd
15:01:17 <shawn> shawn has joined #rd
15:01:35 <Zakim> +??P67
15:01:49 <Zakim> +??P19
15:02:04 <shadi> zakim, call shadi-617
15:02:13 <Zakim> +Shawn
15:02:18 <yeliz> yeliz has joined #rd
15:02:30 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:31 <vivienne> vivienne has joined #rd
15:02:34 <Zakim> ok, shadi; the call is being made
15:02:40 <Zakim> +Shadi.a
15:02:50 <Zakim> +??P3
15:03:00 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P7, ??P59, ??P63, ??P67, ??P19, Shawn, Shadi.a, ??P3
15:03:34 <shadi> zakim, ??p7 is christos
15:03:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P7, ??P59, ??P63, ??P67, ??P19, Shawn, Shadi.a, ??P3
15:04:18 <Zakim> + +1.361.279.aaaa
15:04:23 <Zakim> +christos; got it
15:04:34 <shadi> zakim, ??p59 is markel
15:04:43 <shadi> zakim, ??p63 is giorgio
15:04:54 <Mate> zakim, +1.361.279.aaaa is Mate
15:04:55 <shadi> zakim, ??p3 is mate
15:05:01 <Zakim> +??P9
15:05:09 <Zakim> +markel; got it
15:05:15 <Zakim> +giorgio; got it
15:05:17 <vivienne> zakim, ??p9 is vivienne
15:05:26 <Zakim> +Mate; got it
15:05:28 <Zakim> +mate; got it
15:05:32 <Zakim> +vivienne; got it
15:05:36 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see christos, markel, giorgio, ??P67, ??P19, Shawn, Shadi.a, mate, Mate, vivienne
15:06:27 <shadi> zakim, ??p67 is joshoue
15:06:27 <Zakim> +joshoue; got it
15:06:35 <shadi> zakim, ??p19 is peter
15:06:35 <Zakim> +peter; got it
15:06:45 <Zakim> +??P35
15:06:55 <yeliz> zakim, ??P35 is yeliz
15:06:55 <Zakim> +yeliz; got it
15:07:04 <yeliz> zakim, mute me
15:07:04 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
15:07:06 <shadi> agenda?
15:07:17 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:07:17 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
15:07:23 <yeliz> I can do it
15:07:24 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
15:07:24 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Welcome and logistics" taken up [from shadi]
15:07:32 <yeliz> zakim, unmute yeliz
15:07:32 <Zakim> yeliz should no longer be muted
15:07:36 <shadi> scribe: yeliz
15:07:40 <yeliz> zakim, mute me
15:07:40 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
15:07:48 <shawn> zakim, mute me
15:07:48 <Zakim> Shawn should now be muted
15:07:53 <yeliz> Agenda: Welcome and logistics
15:08:07 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/
15:08:36 <yeliz> saz: please remember Wiki, and please try to put your ideas, coontribute to existing topics, or extend existing topics
15:08:52 <yeliz> sac: we have a new EC funded project, which will be announced soon
15:09:03 <yeliz> saz: it will provide support to this group
15:09:28 <yeliz> saz: this project will support additional human resources to this group
15:09:32 <giorgio> what is the purpose of that projet?
15:09:37 <yeliz> saz: please provide support
15:10:11 <yeliz> saz: primarily guidance on accessibility implementation, and guidance on evaluation, related to evaluation task force
15:10:22 <yeliz> saz: additionallly to contribute to this group
15:10:31 <yeliz> saz: so there will be additional sources
15:10:47 <yeliz> saz: more details will follow in the announcements
15:10:48 <giorgio> ok, thanks
15:10:54 <yeliz> saz: happy to answer questions offline
15:11:06 <shawn> Present: Shadi_Abou-Zahra, Giorgio_Brajnik, Vivienne_Conway, Shawn_Lawton_Henry, Christos_Kouroupetroglou, Joshue_O'Connor, Máté_Pataki, Markel_Vigo, Yeliz_Yesilada
15:11:10 <yeliz> saz: questions, comments
15:11:15 <yeliz> ?
15:11:16 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:11:16 <Zakim> agendum 2. "CFP Finalisation and Release" taken up [from shadi]
15:11:35 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/
15:11:50 <yeliz> saz: this is a place holder page
15:12:10 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/cfp.html
15:12:12 <yeliz> saz: this is where we announce agenda, cfp, etc
15:12:22 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/metrics/
15:12:22 <yeliz> saz: this page has a link to the cfp which we have been working on
15:12:30 <yeliz> saz: there is also a link to call for participation
15:12:38 <yeliz> saz: it has details of paper submission
15:12:49 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/template.html
15:12:57 <yeliz> saz: it also has a link to the template, which marke, giorgio and josh provided
15:13:14 <yeliz> saz: I have been getting them reviewed internally, talked to legal person about the licensing
15:13:44 <yeliz> saz: we will be working with them, taking their contribution and add them to a W3C note, so wanted to make sure we use the right licensing
15:14:19 <yeliz> saz: it will not be an exclusive right, people can submit it to somewhere else, they can put it on their website, publish it another journal, etc
15:14:23 <yeliz> saz: those all set
15:14:29 <giorgio> do you have alink to he license?
15:14:43 <shawn> questions on participation, etc.: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Aug/0032.html
15:15:00 <yeliz> saz: I also have comments received similar to Shawn's comments, including participation as a speaker, as a non-speaker, etc, we need to look at that more closely
15:15:13 <yeliz> saz: some people already said they are fine with it
15:15:22 <markel> q+
15:15:25 <yeliz> saz: but I would like to get feedback from all, as we have to announce it soon
15:15:35 <yeliz> saz: any other comment beside the participation aspect?
15:15:48 <yeliz> mv: why we cannot release it today or tomorrow?
15:16:19 <yeliz> saz: we are ready to annmounce it soon, we might need to polish some small things before we publish it
15:16:24 <markel> ok, thanks
15:16:27 <yeliz> saz: I do expect that we can announce it after the call
15:16:37 <yeliz> saz: anything else?
15:16:42 <shawn> q+ 
15:16:50 <markel> q-
15:17:00 <yeliz> saz: has anybody not looked at the template? I hope you all have
15:17:02 <vivienne> Yes, I've looked at it
15:17:04 <shadi> ack s
15:17:12 <shawn> ack me
15:17:40 <yeliz> shawn: it would be nice to put the license before the submission
15:17:49 <yeliz> shawn: I don't know if it will be clutter the cfp
15:18:00 <yeliz> saz: are you referring to the submission form or cfp?
15:18:31 <giorgio> q+
15:18:32 <shadi> [[put licensing information in the CfP]]
15:18:41 <yeliz> shawn: when I look at the cfp, I have all the info but when I try to submit it, first time I come across with the license, so might not have time to look into this license
15:18:59 <shadi> ack giorgio
15:19:00 <yeliz> shawn: so it would be useful to put it in the cfp, so people can see more about it before they submit
15:19:27 <shadi> [[The Contributor hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any Contributor copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish, use, and modify the contribution and to distribute the contribution under a BSD License or one with more restrictive terms, as well as a right and license of the same scope to any derivative works prepared by the W3C and based on, or incorporating all or part of the contribution.
15:19:27 <shadi>  The Contributor further agrees that any derivative works of this contribution prepared by the W3C shall be solely owned by the W3C.
15:19:27 <shadi> The Contributor states, to the best of her/his knowledge, that she/he, or the company she/he represents, has all rights necessary to contribute the Materials.
15:19:29 <shadi> W3C will retain attribution of initial authorship to the Contributor. The W3C makes no a-priori commitment to support or distribute contributions.
15:19:30 <markel> cool
15:19:32 <shadi> Please see the RDWG Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information on copyrights and attribution.]]
15:19:32 <yeliz> GB: I agree with Shawn, it would be good to put it at the end of CFP, but if the license is not ready I do not want to delay the release of the CFP
15:19:41 <yeliz> saz: license is ready
15:19:52 <yeliz> saz: we can do this and add it before the cfp is released
15:19:56 <yeliz> saz: anything else?
15:20:18 <yeliz> saz: another comment, cfp is long....so how much we can put in the overview page?
15:20:29 <yeliz> saz: show stopper is the participation, lets discuss that
15:20:39 <giorgio> q+
15:20:47 <yeliz> saz: participation and format, they are closely related
15:20:56 <shawn> Topic: Participation and Format
15:21:10 <yeliz> GB: format I had in mind is the conference format
15:21:14 <shawn> zakim, mute me
15:21:14 <Zakim> Shawn should now be muted
15:21:51 <Joshue> Joshue has joined #rd
15:21:52 <yeliz> gb: depending on the overall papers, we can have a panel, a panel proposed by different authors, where we discuss a number of discussion points raised by the group
15:22:09 <yeliz> zakim, unmute yeliz
15:22:09 <Zakim> yeliz should no longer be muted
15:22:29 <markel> it would depend on the submissions
15:22:38 <markel> but at most 10 minutes
15:22:46 <markel> In my opinion
15:23:00 <yeliz> zakim, mute yeliz
15:23:00 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
15:23:03 <markel> q+
15:23:09 <yeliz> saz: what do others think?
15:23:09 <giorgio> q-
15:23:14 <Mario-Batusic> In my opinion also at most 10 minutes
15:23:16 <vivienne> q+
15:23:17 <yeliz> saz: how do we run the actual telecon?
15:23:28 <yeliz> saz: full day, half a day, 2 hours
15:23:29 <yeliz> ?
15:23:36 <shadi> ack markel
15:23:41 <vivienne> zakim, unmute me
15:23:41 <Zakim> vivienne should no longer be muted
15:23:53 <Mario-Batusic> q+
15:24:00 <yeliz> mv: I agree with the proposed format by Giorgio, I think at most 10 minutes, doing this online is not like the real conference
15:24:16 <yeliz> mv: we cannot force people to read the abstracts before the meeting
15:24:21 <yeliz> mv: so the panel would be good
15:24:32 <yeliz> mv: I agree with the authors and observers
15:24:33 <giorgio> yes
15:24:48 <yeliz> mv: they can both participate in the panel
15:24:59 <shawn> q+ to say the expectation that participants read the abstracts beforehand could be part of the registration process. then can spend less time on presentations of each paper and more on discussion
15:24:59 <yeliz> mv: two hours is good, I think
15:25:32 <yeliz> saz: can you please explain more?
15:25:52 <yeliz> gb: the idea is that we as the editors, would like compare the results, etc. 
15:26:08 <yeliz> gb: during this panel, I would like to see the differences in perspectives, etc
15:26:16 <yeliz> gb: sort of lively discussion
15:26:32 <yeliz> gb: every presented presents for 10 minutes that would be an hour
15:26:39 <markel> presentations would focus more on open research lines
15:26:50 <markel> as the us have read the papers in advanced
15:26:52 <giorgio> could be
15:26:54 <markel> yes
15:27:05 <yeliz> saz: then we will have a panel, editors would have specific questions, then an half an hour for an open QA
15:27:20 <giorgio> panel=guided discusion around a set of predefined and new questions
15:27:21 <yeliz> saz: when you say panel, you mean specific questions come from the chair
15:27:29 <shadi> ack vivienne
15:27:50 <yeliz> I cannot hear vivienne well
15:27:50 <yeliz> :(
15:28:10 <markel> me neither
15:28:32 <yeliz> vivienne: the editors will have the papers/abstracts so the chairs can direct the questions
15:28:40 <giorgio> vivienne, the PC will have read all the submittd papers.
15:28:43 <shawn> vivienne: I think 10 minutes should be sufficient. If we have a lot of people who want to pose questions, could be complicated. Maybe better if discussion question could be decided ahead of time.
15:28:46 <Mario-Batusic> She said: 10 minutes should be enough because the paper is limited at 1000 words only.
15:28:57 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:28:57 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
15:29:03 <giorgio> no: my was an answer to vivienne
15:29:04 <markel> thank you for the summaries
15:29:11 <vivienne> yes, that's fine
15:29:19 <yeliz> great
15:29:48 <yeliz> saz: as a working we can have input to the questions, I am not sure if we will have one or more panel chairs
15:30:02 <yeliz> saz: we will also have a lot of input from the group
15:30:04 <shadi> ack mario
15:30:25 <yeliz> Mario, I think 10 minutes is more than enough as the papers are short
15:30:46 <yeliz> Mario, we can also limit the no. of accepted papers so we can control the length of the webinar
15:31:05 <yeliz> saz: no. of authors  is important
15:31:14 <Zakim> -mate
15:31:51 <shawn> zakim, unmute me
15:31:51 <Zakim> Shawn should no longer be muted
15:31:54 <markel> what's that?
15:31:57 <yeliz> saz: on the one side the way we phrase the participation, we only encourage, may see offputting
15:31:58 <markel> :-S
15:32:09 <markel> :-D
15:32:31 <shawn> q+ to say . second point: the idea of participants submitting questions beforehand - so people can have input to the discussion AND we can organize it more ahead of time
15:32:37 <yeliz> saz: presenters are important
15:32:42 <shawn> zakim, mute me
15:32:42 <Zakim> Shawn should now be muted
15:32:58 <giorgio> q+
15:33:02 <yeliz> saz: for example, somebody who is not very strong in academia but has good contribion
15:33:08 <markel> q+
15:33:18 <yeliz> saz: but we have to be careful with the no. of speakers
15:33:33 <yeliz> saz: with already 10 minutes each, and 5 speakers, we hit 1 hour
15:33:44 <yeliz> saz: we have to reflect this in the wording of the cfp
15:33:46 <pthiessen> (sorry noise was probably me - in office - overzealous programmer getting a bit to excited about code - hiding in room with door now)
15:34:10 <shawn> ack me
15:34:12 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say the expectation that participants read the abstracts beforehand could be part of the registration process. then can spend less time on presentations of
15:34:18 <Zakim> ... each paper and more on discussion and to say . second point: the idea of participants submitting questions beforehand - so people can have input to the discussion AND we can
15:34:26 <Zakim> ... organize it more ahead of time
15:34:53 <Mario-Batusic> We should state the acceptance guidleines clearly in the CFP.
15:34:56 <yeliz> shawn: we could say that the participants have to read the abstracts before the seminar, so we could have shorter presentations
15:35:04 <markel> agree
15:35:15 <yeliz> shawn: online presentations are not complelling so 10 minutes would be long
15:35:17 <pthiessen> (agreed about attention span :)
15:35:44 <vivienne> shawn, I like those ideas
15:35:47 <shadi> [[participants to send questions ahead of time]]
15:35:48 <yeliz> shawn: we could even offer participants to send the questions before the event, so that they can organise the panel better
15:35:59 <yeliz> I like these ideas as well
15:36:06 <markel> yeah, good idea: making questions in advance
15:36:07 <yeliz> gb: I agree with shawn
15:36:10 <shawn> zakim, unmute me
15:36:10 <Zakim> Shawn was not muted, shawn
15:36:14 <shawn> ack g
15:36:20 <shawn> zakim, mute me
15:36:20 <Zakim> Shawn should now be muted
15:36:23 <yeliz> gb: asking participants to submit questions beforehand would be very good
15:36:40 <yeliz> gb: selection of the papers, we have already clearly explain in the cfp
15:36:41 <shadi> [[require participants to read contributions in the registration form]]
15:37:04 <vivienne> what happens if one of us wants to submit a paper?  Should we abstain in hope of encouraging others?
15:37:18 <Mario-Batusic> q+
15:37:30 <yeliz> gb: we send out the cfp, depending on the contributions, depending on the no. of submissions, we can make re-arrengements on the timeslots
15:37:34 <vivienne> q+
15:37:43 <shadi> ack markel
15:37:49 <vivienne> zakim, unmute me
15:37:49 <Zakim> vivienne should no longer be muted
15:37:50 <yeliz> gb: ex, 10 papers 5 minutes each vs. 5 papers, 10 min
15:38:16 <yeliz> mv: I think anybody can submit, as long as they are good quality, it does not matter if they are from academia or not
15:38:33 <giorgio> agree
15:38:47 <Mario-Batusic> agree
15:39:16 <yeliz> saz: some wording here that we need to add to cfp
15:39:24 <shadi> ack mario
15:40:02 <markel> shadi, I think the template forces (because of the sections we put) you to put mature work, doesn't it?
15:40:09 <giorgio> i don't agree it would not be useful to authors anyway-
15:40:09 <yeliz> mario: in the cfp, we have said according to which guidelines, but one of the criteria should be no. of papers that could be accepted
15:40:11 <shawn> wording brainstorms: well-developed, mature, well-thoughout, ...
15:40:22 <giorgio> q+
15:40:40 <giorgio> sayning the numbr of acceptd papers
15:40:49 <shadi> ack vivienne
15:41:52 <yeliz> saz: I think it should not be a disadvantage being in the group
15:42:22 <pthiessen> (perhaps external reviewers for group members?)
15:42:36 <shadi> ack giorgio
15:42:36 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:42:37 <markel> again, I would encourge anybody to submit
15:42:38 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
15:42:49 <shawn> +1 that group participants should be encouraged to submit papers, and then think about how to handle it if there is an issue, e.g., that there are more good papers than there are timeslots
15:42:53 <yeliz> gb: anybody can be an observer, anybody is free to join as the observer
15:43:20 <markel> I don't agree either in setting a number of papers
15:43:26 <shawn> +1 to leave it open how many papers will be accepted -- it depends how many good ones we get :)
15:43:34 <yeliz> gb: regarding the no. papers that can be accepted, I don't think it is a good idea to include this information on the cfp
15:43:43 <yeliz> I agree as well
15:43:52 <vivienne> I agree, putting the number of papers to be accepted may discourage authors
15:44:21 <yeliz> gb: I would invite everybody to submit
15:44:32 <Mario-Batusic> agree
15:44:32 <markel> fully agree with GB
15:44:36 <vivienne> ok
15:44:37 <pthiessen> agree
15:44:40 <yeliz> and then we should trust to the scientific committee to do a good job
15:44:41 <christos> agree
15:44:52 <giorgio> we do not need to chang thecfp
15:44:57 <shadi> q?
15:45:03 <yeliz> zakim, unmute yeliz
15:45:03 <Zakim> yeliz should no longer be muted
15:45:22 <yeliz> zakim, mute yeliz
15:45:22 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
15:45:29 <shadi> [[We particularly, encourage densely referenced, concise contributions based on sound scientific evidence covering work already accomplished, works in progress, and future avenues of investigation. We also seek reports and guides, which can be theoretical or practical in nature, that will help us to form our opinions and educate future readers.]]
15:45:30 <shawn> zakim, who is muted?
15:45:30 <Zakim> I see Shawn, vivienne, yeliz muted
15:46:23 <markel> q+
15:46:26 <yeliz> saz: I would like to propose this as a small change
15:46:40 <yeliz> mv: first sentence, I agree with that
15:47:08 <yeliz> mv: not sure about "theoretical or practical" aspect?
15:47:27 <yeliz> mv: for theoretical work, they need to have strong support
15:47:48 <yeliz> mv: I would remove "also" from "we also seek reports and guides"
15:48:08 <giorgio> I would leave the cfp as it is now
15:48:28 <yeliz> YY: I would also leave it as it is
15:48:41 <vivienne> I like the first sentence as you changed it, but maybe leave the second sentence alone.
15:48:54 <giorgio> q+
15:48:57 <markel> q-
15:49:18 <yeliz> saz: I am concerned about submissions for example a paper that is scientifically sound, but it is not what the scientific committee want
15:49:30 <yeliz> saz: what would be the justification for rejection then?
15:49:53 <Mario-Batusic> first quality, afterwards first in -> first accepted.
15:49:59 <yeliz> gb: we wil never have 100 objectivity, for example, we all have different criteria in mind
15:50:18 <yeliz> gb: relevance for example would be low, etc
15:50:43 <yeliz> gb: we have not organising the only, and the most importance conference on accessibility, we will at most receve 10 or 15
15:50:56 <yeliz> gb: there will be plenty of uncertainty, etc.
15:51:08 <yeliz> gb: I don't think it worths to discuss this
15:51:10 <yeliz> q+
15:51:16 <yeliz> zakim, unmute me
15:51:16 <Zakim> yeliz should no longer be muted
15:51:17 <shadi> ack giorgio
15:51:22 <shawn> q+
15:51:27 <shawn> ack y
15:51:29 <yeliz> can u hear me?
15:51:35 <shawn> ack Yeliz
15:51:36 <giorgio> no
15:51:43 <shawn> zakim, unmute Yeliz
15:51:43 <Zakim> yeliz was not muted, shawn
15:51:49 <yeliz> sorry
15:51:54 <yeliz> tehcnical difficulty
15:51:54 <yeliz> :(
15:52:11 <yeliz> Shawn, please go ahead
15:52:14 <yeliz> until I sort this out
15:52:20 <shawn> zakim, mute Yeliz
15:52:20 <Zakim> yeliz should now be muted
15:52:27 <shawn> ack shawn
15:53:36 <markel> it's not contradictory i think
15:53:41 <markel> anybody can submit
15:53:50 <shawn> q+ to say do we need be sure to encourage submissions? (can reject them or require that they be modified before acceptance)
15:53:53 <markel> but the acceptance is based on the criteria of the SC
15:54:14 <yeliz> saz: people outside academia might turn away when they read that
15:54:19 <giorgio> that's too strong a statement, shadi. people outside academia do also research.
15:54:31 <markel> q+
15:54:38 <shawn> ack me
15:54:38 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say do we need be sure to encourage submissions? (can reject them or require that they be modified before acceptance)
15:54:40 <yeliz> saz: how can we protect ourselves from that
15:55:10 <yeliz> shawn: I think we should encourage submissions, there are a lot of people outside academic research that would like to include, etc
15:55:39 <yeliz> shawn: I am little concerned with the current wording, could exclude people that are outside academia
15:55:56 <giorgio> here i disagree with shawn!
15:55:59 <yeliz> shawn: I think the first thing should be welcoming
15:56:08 <markel> I dont' understand what open means
15:56:11 <markel> in this context
15:56:15 <shawn> :-)
15:56:30 <yeliz> saz: we do want high quality input
15:56:35 <shadi> ack markel
15:56:53 <markel> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/template.html
15:57:09 <yeliz> mv: I do expect good work. good quality work from practitions
15:57:30 <yeliz> mv: people who have experience in metrics, they could put their contributions
15:57:34 <giorgio> agree 100%
15:57:49 <yeliz> mv: to me open means anybody can submit as long as its good quality
15:57:51 <shadi> [[We encourage densely referenced, concise contributions based on sound scientific evidence covering work already accomplished ...]]
15:57:55 <shawn> q+ to say like template!, but "densely referenced" is scarey
15:58:02 <markel> that's for position papers
15:58:31 <giorgio> q+
15:58:41 <markel> those that provide empirical evidence shouldn't have so much references
15:58:55 <yeliz> saz: I think this sentence can be scary to practitioners, this could sound too academic
15:59:00 <yeliz> saz: how do we find a god balance
15:59:02 <yeliz> ?
15:59:03 <giorgio> yes
15:59:07 <markel> references are for those that submit theoretical papers
15:59:12 <shadi> ack shawn
15:59:12 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say like template!, but "densely referenced" is scarey
15:59:14 <shawn> s/but "densely referenced" is scarey/but "densely referenced" & sound scientific evidence is scarey for some of us :-)/
15:59:32 <Mario-Batusic> Then you need 2 paper styles, Shadi: practitioner and scientific?
15:59:42 <yeliz> shawn: I have to confess, I am one of those
15:59:48 <markel> q+
15:59:51 <yeliz> shawn: it will put some people off
16:00:00 <markel> yes I can
16:00:01 <giorgio> ok
16:00:02 <vivienne> yes
16:00:02 <pthiessen> sure
16:00:03 <christos> ok
16:00:04 <yeliz> I have to go
16:00:05 <yeliz> :(
16:00:09 <shawn> scribe: Shawn
16:00:17 <yeliz> thank you Shawn
16:00:26 <shadi> ack giorgio
16:00:51 <Zakim> -yeliz
16:01:02 <shawn> gb: can provide scientific evidence in different ways. so OK to change text in CfP
16:01:07 <Mario-Batusic> agree
16:01:10 <vivienne> how about "well-referenced"?
16:01:17 <pthiessen> (agree with Shawn from my past work in OS community on a11y work - I suspect a lot of developers would be afraid of many of the mentioned terms)
16:01:22 <christos> Maybe we could use the wording "scientifically sound"...?
16:01:34 <shawn> sax: agree with shawn that template looks really good
16:01:37 <giorgio> not "well referenced" but "with  references"
16:01:51 <shawn> s/sax: agree with shawn that template looks really good/saz: agree with shawn that template looks really good/
16:01:57 <shadi> s/sax:/saz:
16:02:08 <shadi> ack markel
16:02:38 <shawn> markel: why did we shoose "densely referenced". we were afraid we would get lots of position papers. we want solid papers, empirical foundations.
16:02:55 <Zakim> -Mate
16:03:17 <shawn> ... focus on referenced was for people who wanted to submit purely theoritical papers
16:03:43 <shawn> saz: agree, want high quality. want to be enviting, too. find sweet spot.
16:04:00 <christos> adequately referenced?
16:04:02 <giorgio> i would like to resolve it now
16:04:16 <giorgio> yes yes yes :-)
16:04:26 <markel> "Theoretical papers should be densely referenced while empirical ones are subjected to the data their provide"
16:05:17 <shawn> perhaps point to the template clearly?
16:05:25 <pthiessen> :)
16:05:25 <giorgio> We encourage concise contributions that are scientifically sound ...
16:05:29 <christos> scientifically sound says it all I think
16:05:38 <markel> +1
16:05:41 <vivienne> +1
16:05:43 <shadi> We encourage contributions that are scientifically sound and that are adequately referenced]]
16:05:58 <giorgio> q+
16:06:02 <shadi> [[We encourage concise contributions that are scientifically sound and that are adequately referenced]]
16:06:09 <shadi> ack giorgio
16:06:10 <christos> we encourage coincise scientificlly sound contibutions
16:06:43 <christos> or maybe properly referenced
16:06:45 <christos> ?
16:06:49 <shadi> [[We encourage concise contributions that are scientifically sound with adequate references]]
16:06:52 <shawn> +1 to giorgio that we don't want papers full of references, we want papers full of good material :-)
16:06:53 <Mario-Batusic> thats true, Giorgio!
16:07:04 <Mario-Batusic> Better with adequate references
16:07:10 <vivienne> appropriate references?
16:07:13 <giorgio> yes.
16:07:21 <giorgio> q+
16:07:23 <markel> sound references
16:07:29 <christos> apropriate
16:07:32 <shadi> [[We encourage concise contributions that are scientifically sound with appropriate references]]
16:07:34 <Mario-Batusic> appropriate is better.
16:08:02 <Mario-Batusic> ok
16:08:06 <vivienne> ok
16:08:07 <markel> where the adequacy will be measured by the SC
16:08:29 <vivienne> yes
16:08:29 <giorgio> yes
16:08:29 <christos> yes
16:08:32 <giorgio> no
16:08:33 <pthiessen> magnifique :)
16:08:33 <shawn> yes
16:08:36 <Mario-Batusic> yes
16:08:37 <giorgio> no other tweaks
16:08:39 <markel> it's fine
16:08:49 <shawn> q+ to suggest template
16:08:50 <giorgio> except for the license
16:09:03 <giorgio> we need to add the license link
16:09:11 <shawn> ack g
16:10:44 <giorgio> sorry: we need what kind of copyleft we think is appropriate.
16:10:51 <giorgio> q+
16:11:22 <shadi> ack g
16:12:21 <shadi> action: shadi to explain copyright terms of the publications and to link to the permission to use (from the WBS)
16:12:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Explain copyright terms of the publications and to link to the permission to use (from the WBS) [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2011-09-22].
16:12:50 <giorgio> yes, go ahead.
16:12:59 <pthiessen> sure
16:13:01 <shawn> saz: do I have permission from the group to add that and publish and announce? or do people want to review it first?
16:13:04 <vivienne> no problems
16:13:07 <shawn> ack me
16:13:07 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest template
16:13:07 <christos> no problem
16:14:05 <shadi> [[Papers should follow the [template] to clearly explain:]]
16:14:13 <markel> yes, why not
16:14:17 <christos> yes
16:14:22 <giorgio> yes
16:14:26 <Mario-Batusic> yes
16:14:30 <vivienne> yes
16:14:38 <shadi> [[The review process will ensure that each paper will get at least three independent reviews, based on criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty]]
16:14:59 <shadi> [[The review process will ensure that each paper will get at least three independent reviews, based on criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty, and time available]]
16:15:01 <giorgio> no, i don't agree
16:15:02 <shawn> saz: "The review process will ensure that each paper will get at least three independent reviews, based on criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty." maybe add and space or time available
16:15:03 <markel> no 
16:15:37 <shawn> gb: saying there isn't enough time wouldn't help in getting better papers
16:16:04 <markel> if we get many quality papers we will have to squeeze them 
16:16:06 <giorgio> q+
16:16:17 <markel> q+
16:16:23 <shawn> saz: it is one of the criteria why we choose to accept or reject the paper. it's a safeguard if we need to say "we got too many paper"
16:16:30 <shadi> ack giorgio
16:17:14 <Mario-Batusic> agree
16:17:30 <shawn> gb: the setnece talks aboput review. committee will decide what to accept based no other critieria, such as time. if we send a reject notice, then we say it was good paper but we had to reject due to limitations of time. why need to say?
16:18:06 <shawn> saz: because we do get challenged. people have very high expectations of transparency, [missed], and such.
16:18:08 <giorgio> it'll be the program committee task to justify its choices. having this sentence would not help.
16:18:52 <shawn> markel: if get many high quality, we will rank them, set a threshold. it's pity if can't accept all good ones.
16:19:29 <shawn> saz: issue is this is under W3C WAI.
16:19:40 <giorgio> is this a research and dev group?
16:19:50 <giorgio> q+
16:19:55 <markel> -q
16:20:29 <markel> another option is to accept all papers that have a minimum of quality and all will be part of the proceedings
16:20:31 <shawn> saz: be spelled out clearly that paper might not be accepted based on limitations of time
16:20:42 <shadi> ack giorgio
16:20:43 <markel> but only the best will be presented at the weminar
16:21:05 <shawn> gb: we can write it with rejection letter
16:21:18 <shawn> q+
16:21:31 <shadi> ack shawn
16:21:32 <shawn> gb: if get lots, we do more seminars :)
16:21:33 <shawn> ack me
16:22:44 <giorgio> I would agree on putting it only if we can do it now.
16:23:23 <giorgio> suggstions?
16:23:34 <markel> I still don't get it, are we suggesting that all papers should be accepted because WAI is afraid of criticism because of rejections?
16:24:44 <shawn> shawn: ...
16:25:10 <markel> but this is what happens in all conferences/workshops...
16:25:14 <vivienne> let's put the statement at the end of the "all submissions will be reviewed" paragraph
16:25:15 <shawn> saz: no, it's so people don't criticize the reviewers. set expectation form the beginning that time limitations is a legitimate reason for rejection
16:26:21 <markel> q+
16:27:23 <shawn> All submissions will be reviewed by the Scientific Committee, and each paper will get at least three independent reviews, based on criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty. Papers will be accepted based on this critieria and space availability. Accepted papers will be published - in an attributable form - as part of the 
16:27:24 <shawn> proceedings and in the ensuing publication (see more information about RDWG Publications and RDWG Practice for Writership and Credits). Authors of accepted papers will be invited to present their work during the symposium.
16:27:24 <Mario-Batusic> Unfortunately I have to leave, bye to all!
16:27:46 <vivienne> sounds good to me
16:28:01 <shadi> ack markel
16:28:19 <Zakim> -christos
16:28:35 <giorgio> I would go for: "All submissions will be reviewed by the Scientific Committee, and each paper will get at least three independent reviews, based on criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty. Papers will be accepted based on this critieria and space availability."
16:28:38 <shawn> markel: papers are evaluated against quality criteria by scientific committee. people should trust this
16:28:53 <giorgio> not for the additional Accepted papers will be published - ..
16:30:00 <markel> q+
16:30:42 <markel> can we diseminate a summary of the CFP in mailing lists?
16:30:44 <shawn> saz: think about for future call: how much info from call for papers should go on the main page -- for future 
16:30:49 <markel> once it is released?
16:30:53 <shawn> ack markel
16:30:55 <shadi> ack markel
16:31:08 <shawn> markel: can we do summary and send to mailing list
16:31:12 <shawn> q+
16:31:42 <shawn> saz: we will do announcements on wai hompage, w3c, wai ig maillnig list, twitter/identi.ca
16:31:45 <markel> ok
16:31:53 <shawn> ... you are welcome to forward e-mail & retweet
16:31:56 <markel> excellent,
16:32:05 <giorgio> good
16:32:09 <shawn> ... encouraged to!
16:32:10 <christos> nice
16:32:11 <markel> i though it was our duty
16:32:12 <shawn> ack me
16:32:33 <markel> yes, of course
16:33:02 <shawn> shawn: prefer that you use wording from announcements or CfP as is
16:33:02 <shawn> saz: have been getting simon's consensus on the announcements
16:33:38 <markel> thank you shadi
16:33:44 <pthiessen> cheers - ttyl (look forward to forwarding around the cfp)
16:33:46 <vivienne> no problem, good night all
16:33:58 <christos> good bye all
16:33:58 <giorgio> bye
16:34:00 <vivienne> vivienne has left #rd
16:34:02 <Zakim> -Shawn
16:34:03 <markel> markel has left #rd
16:34:04 <Zakim> -giorgio
16:34:05 <Zakim> -Shadi.a
16:34:10 <Zakim> -vivienne
16:34:11 <Zakim> -peter
16:34:16 <Zakim> -markel
16:34:16 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:34:16 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:34:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Shawn, Shadi.a, christos, markel, giorgio, Mate, vivienne, joshoue, peter, yeliz
16:34:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:34:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rd-minutes.html trackbot
16:34:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:34:18 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rd-actions.rdf :
16:34:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: shadi to explain copyright terms of the publications and to link to the permission to use (from the WBS) [1]
16:34:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rd-irc#T16-12-21
16:34:20 <Zakim> -joshoue
16:34:20 <Zakim> WAI_RDWG()11:00AM has ended
16:34:21 <Zakim> Attendees were Shawn, Shadi.a, christos, markel, giorgio, Mate, vivienne, joshoue, peter, yeliz