16:01:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webevents
16:01:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-irc
16:01:20 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log public
16:01:30 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
16:01:31 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
16:01:31 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0035.html
16:01:31 <ArtB> Date: 22 November 2011
16:01:31 <ArtB> Chair: Art
16:01:31 <ArtB> Meeting: Web Events WG Voice Conference
16:01:55 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
16:02:04 <Zakim> + +1.781.993.aabb
16:02:12 <ArtB> zakim, aabb is Art_Barstow
16:02:13 <Zakim> +Art_Barstow; got it
16:02:27 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #webevents
16:02:58 <ArtB> Present: Art_Barstow, Doug_Schepers, Cathy_Chan, Suman_Sharma
16:03:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:09 <ArtB> Present+ Sangwhan_Moon
16:03:11 <ssharma2> zakim, +1.408.653 Suman_Sharma
16:03:12 <Zakim> I don't understand '+1.408.653 Suman_Sharma', ssharma2
16:03:24 <sangwhan> zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.653.aaaa, Doug_Schepers, Art_Barstow, [IPcaller]
16:03:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:42 <sangwhan> zakim, IPcaller is me
16:03:42 <Zakim> +sangwhan; got it
16:03:51 <ArtB> Present+ Olli_Pettay
16:03:58 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
16:04:01 <smaug> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is Olli_Pettay
16:04:01 <Zakim> +Olli_Pettay; got it
16:04:04 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:04:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-minutes.html ArtB
16:04:08 <smaug> Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
16:04:08 <Zakim> ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
16:04:24 <ssharma2> zakim, aaaa is Suman_Sharma
16:04:25 <Zakim> +Suman_Sharma; got it
16:04:26 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make log Public
16:04:43 <sangwhan> zakim, nick sangwhan is Sangwhan_Moon
16:04:43 <Zakim> sorry, sangwhan, I do not see a party named 'Sangwhan_Moon'
16:04:47 <mbrubeck> mbrubeck has joined #webevents
16:05:23 <ArtB> Topic: Tweak Agenda
16:05:29 <ArtB> AB: I submitted a draft agenda yesterday http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0127.html. Any change requests?
16:05:38 <ArtB> [ None ]
16:05:42 <ArtB> Topic: Announcements
16:05:47 <ArtB> AB: any short announcements for today?
16:05:51 <Zakim> + +1.206.792.aacc
16:05:53 <ArtB> [ None ]
16:05:56 <mbrubeck> Zakim, aacc is me
16:05:56 <Zakim> +mbrubeck; got it
16:06:01 <ArtB> Present+ Matt_Brubeck
16:06:15 <ArtB> Topic: Apple's patent disclosures for Touch Events v1 spec
16:06:24 <ArtB> AB: last week Apple disclosed 3 patents and 1 patent application applies to the Touch Events spec http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/45559/status.
16:06:49 <ArtB> AB: the only information I have regarding the licensing terms for these patents is that each is marked as " not under Royaltee-Free commitment" [sic].
16:07:15 <ArtB> AB: so that leaves some uncertainty
16:07:29 <ArtB> AB: as a consequence of these disclosures, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception will be created to discuss what, if anything, the WG should do.
16:07:45 <ArtB> AB: the "constituents" of the PAG is documented in the Patent Policy http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-composition. Note that WG members are not members; it is composed of AC reps, attorneys, WG Chair and some W3C Staff. A W3C Staff member will Chair the PAG.
16:08:09 <Cathy_> Cathy_ has joined #webevents
16:08:21 <ArtB> AB: typically, PAGs take several months to reach a "PAG Conclusion" http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude. I suspect the average is around six months although I have been a member of a PAG that was open for over two years.
16:08:21 <Cathy> Cathy has left #webevents
16:08:48 <ArtB> AB: the WG may continue to work on a spec while a PAG is open. In fact, the spec can proceed all of the way to Proposed Recommendation while a PAG is open.
16:09:10 <ArtB> AB: without Member input, PAGs will drag on and on ...
16:09:29 <ArtB> AB: I'd be happy to open the floor to discussions about the PAG mechanics and process but I don't want to talk about the specifics of these patents since that is the job of the PAG.
16:10:04 <ArtB> AB: some Members do not want their WG participants to have any discussions about any patents
16:10:16 <ArtB> AB: Lastly, although these disclosures create a lot of FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), this is part of the "game" whether we like it or not, and I won't tolerate any Member bashing.
16:11:04 <ArtB> AB: and I don't mean to imply that anyone in this meeting would do so, but that's just a general process statement 
16:11:15 <ArtB> DS: I agree with Art on this
16:11:54 <ArtB> AB: remind everyone these minutes are Public
16:12:21 <ArtB> AB: any questions or concerns?
16:14:43 <ArtB> DS: I'm happy to answer questions on this call
16:14:55 <ArtB> … and if anyone wants to discuss this offlist, please let me know
16:15:09 <ArtB> Topic: Touch Events v1 LCWD comment deadline ended November 17
16:15:15 <ArtB> AB: the comment deadline for the October 27 LCWD <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20111027/> ended November 17. The comment tracking doc is http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-27-Oct-2011
16:15:26 <ArtB> AB: the only comment submitted during LC#2 was the minor bug that was accidentally added to the spec. That fix has been agreed and applied.
16:15:40 <ArtB> AB: the PFWG has still not replied to the response we sent to them 6 weeks ago http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0047.html re their comments for LC#1. I don't think a publication of a CR should block waiting for PFWG
16:15:43 <Zakim> +Suman_Sharma.a
16:16:16 <ArtB> DS: agreed
16:16:22 <ArtB> AB: As I mentioned earlier, we may proceed to Candidate Recommendation if we want to do so and not block on the PAG; or we can block on the PAG "Conclusion".
16:17:43 <ArtB> AB: here are the PAG "conclusions": http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-PAG-conclude
16:22:49 <ArtB> DS: in general, I don't think conclusion #6 is in the spirit of W3C's RF specs
16:23:08 <ArtB> … as such, I don't think that's what we want to do
16:24:04 <ArtB> MB: Mozilla will only implement and ship specs that have RF licensing terms for implementers
16:24:08 <shepazu> (I expained RAND a bit)
16:24:24 <mbrubeck> For more elaboration of Mozilla's position on RAND vs RF licensing, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1350.html
16:25:12 <ArtB> AB: so, we can either move toward CR or block for the PAG
16:25:25 <ArtB> … I could start a 1 or 2 week CfC to move to CR
16:25:47 <ArtB> … and use that time to discuss this internally with your company/org
16:26:10 <ArtB> DS: I think moving to CR is the right thing to do
16:26:30 <ArtB> … and assume things will work out
16:26:42 <ArtB> … but we should also think about a contingency plan
16:27:34 <ArtB> AB: any other comments about starting a CfC to pub a CR
16:27:45 <ArtB> MB: I agree; no additional work is needed; the spec is ready
16:27:57 <ArtB> SM: I also agree
16:28:09 <ArtB> AB: is a 1-week CfC enough
16:28:28 <ArtB> OP: perhaps 2 would be better
16:28:45 <ArtB> DS: yes, I think that is reasonable
16:29:08 <ArtB> AB: the only thing I wanted to mention is that December 12 is the last day to request publication for 2011
16:30:06 <ArtB> AB: how about a 10-day CfC?
16:30:12 <ArtB> … any objections to that
16:30:19 <ArtB> [ None ]
16:30:37 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: Art will start a 10-day CfC to publish a CR of Touch Events v1 spec
16:30:55 <ArtB> Topic: Contingency Plan for Touch Events spec
16:31:16 <ArtB> DS: this is unfortunate; 
16:31:29 <ArtB> … the folks in this WG has done good work
16:31:40 <ArtB> s/has done/have done/
16:31:52 <ArtB> … I don't want to give up on a Touch Events spec
16:32:01 <ArtB> … and we got a good spec is short amount of time
16:32:11 <ArtB> … I only see 2 ways around this
16:32:24 <ArtB> … One is to circumvent any IP/claims we know about
16:32:39 <ArtB> … and that something the PAG can recommend to this WG
16:32:52 <ArtB> … I haven't looked at the patents
16:33:07 <ArtB> … so I don't have a sense of the severity
16:33:25 <ArtB> … It could be a small amount of work is needed but I don't know yet
16:33:34 <ArtB> … The 2nd option ...
16:34:04 <ArtB> … If it turns out what we defined is totally tainted, we may have to do something else
16:34:18 <ArtB> … There are some other touch interfaces
16:34:28 <ArtB> … We adopted the Webkit model
16:34:39 <ArtB> … Mozilla had a different model
16:34:48 <ArtB> … Microsoft also has a different model
16:34:49 <mbrubeck> Mozilla's original approach: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla_experimental%29
16:35:20 <ArtB> … It could be one of these other approaches may make sense to pursue
16:35:43 <ArtB> … I would hate to start over but it could give us an opportunity to define a better interface
16:36:01 <mbrubeck> MS pointer events: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/09/20/touch-input-for-ie10-and-metro-style-apps.aspx
16:36:54 <ArtB> … Our current spec gives a good network approach given the pervasive use of Webkit
16:37:09 <ArtB> … but there are other models to consider
16:37:34 <ArtB> … Do others think it is reasonable to consider a different starting point?
16:38:14 <ArtB> AB: I think it's a little early but OTOH, it is perhaps inevitable
16:38:34 <ArtB> … Has anyone done any comparisons?
16:39:03 <ArtB> DS: what about fennec?
16:39:34 <ArtB> OP: we have a lower level API; pretty basic
16:39:45 <ArtB> … f.ex. no touch point lists
16:39:53 <ArtB> … much closer to mouse events
16:41:02 <ArtB> DS: I think there is more similarity b/w the mouse and touch interface in Msft's model than our TE spec
16:41:24 <ArtB> … thus their model can make content creation easier
16:42:07 <ArtB> SS: so, if we need to re-evaluate, shouldn't we wait for the PAG
16:42:21 <ArtB> … especially if the probability is high?
16:42:32 <ArtB> DS: I think that is a reasonable stance
16:43:22 <ArtB> … but personally, I would like to keep moving forward
16:43:49 <ArtB> Suman: I understand that too Doug
16:44:00 <ArtB> … I'm just trying to understand what people are thinking
16:44:20 <ArtB> DS: want to separate the IP work the PAG will do and the technical work the WG will do
16:45:16 <ArtB> AB: during this CfC, I think it's appropriate if responses are sent to the group's Member-confidential list 
16:46:19 <ArtB> AB: I hope everyone uses the 10-day CfC to get some internal discussion
16:46:35 <ArtB> DS: one thing the PAG might do is to look at prior art
16:46:57 <ArtB> … and how the spec holds up to the prior work as opposed to the patents
16:48:07 <ArtB> … It is possible some other Member has IP in this area too and that could lead to a good resolution
16:48:48 <ArtB> Suman: when will this CfC end?
16:49:03 <ArtB> AB: I'll start it today, and the deadline will be 10 days from today
16:49:39 <ArtB> ACTION: barstow start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch Events v1 spec
16:49:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch Events v1 spec [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-29].
16:49:49 <ArtB> Topic: Charter update
16:49:54 <ArtB> AB: the latest Draft proposal for Touch Events WG is http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/charter/2011/Overview.html
16:50:01 <ArtB> AB: the latest Draft proposal for Indie UI WG (fka Intentional Events WG) is http://www.w3.org/2011/11/indie-ui-charter
16:50:29 <ArtB> AB: off-list, one Member of the WG raised a concern about some other Member not being able to participate in the Gamepad and PointerLock specs if they are added to Web Events' charter. As such, those two APIs may be added to some other "friendly" WG or used as the basis of a new WG.
16:51:11 <ArtB> DS: more concretely, they could be added to WebApps WG
16:51:30 <ArtB> … or put in a new WG like a "Game" WG
16:51:43 <ArtB> … then other specs could be added to that WG
16:51:47 <ArtB> … f.ex. MIDI
16:52:24 <ArtB> AB: Doug, do you have any status or other info you can share?
16:52:47 <ArtB> DS: I don't have any new info to share 
16:52:54 <ArtB> … I can inquire and report back
16:53:02 <ArtB> … I think the charters are mostly ready
16:53:25 <ArtB> … If we don't add Gamepad and PointerLock, we don't need to re-charter
16:53:39 <ArtB> … because the Intentional Events spec is already in our charter
16:56:44 <ArtB> SM: during our f2f meeting I mentioned another model
16:56:55 <ArtB> DS: I think that is similar to what Msft has done
16:57:16 <ArtB> … would you please create a strawman about that?
16:57:21 <ArtB> SM: yes, I can do that
16:57:48 <ArtB> AB: anything else on this topic?
16:57:53 <ArtB> Topic: AoB
16:58:04 <ArtB> AB: any other business for today?
16:58:50 <ArtB> SM: I got access to the stream api from Khronos group
16:59:00 <ArtB> … I don't think we need to worry about it
16:59:05 <ArtB> … it is way too complicated
16:59:16 <ArtB> Suman: they have several proposals
16:59:23 <ArtB> … agree we don't have to look at it
17:00:41 <ArtB> AB: I will determine next Monday if we will have a call on Nov 29
17:00:50 <ArtB> AB: Meeting Adjourned!
17:00:50 <Zakim> -Olli_Pettay
17:00:54 <Zakim> -sangwhan
17:00:55 <Zakim> -Suman_Sharma.a
17:01:00 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-minutes.html ArtB
17:01:01 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
17:01:03 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
17:01:10 <Zakim> -mbrubeck
17:06:10 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Suman_Sharma, in RWC_WebEven()11:00AM
17:06:13 <Zakim> RWC_WebEven()11:00AM has ended
17:06:15 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.653.aaaa, Doug_Schepers, +1.781.993.aabb, Art_Barstow, sangwhan, Olli_Pettay, Suman_Sharma, +1.206.792.aacc, mbrubeck
17:45:33 <sangwhan> sangwhan has left #webevents
18:07:42 <smaug> smaug has joined #webevents
18:08:45 <ArtB> zakim, bye
18:08:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webevents
18:08:51 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
18:08:51 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-actions.rdf :
18:08:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: barstow start a 10-day CfC to publish CR of Touch Events v1 spec [1]
18:08:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-webevents-irc#T16-49-39