Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

23 May 2012

See also: IRC log


Vivienne, Shadi, Shawn, Simon, Markel, Yeliz, Yehya
Klaus, Joshue, Giorgio


Mobile Topic Update

SH: reviews all received back now
... 3 editors assigned as advocates for the papers. We must now read them and discuss them next week.
... we need to decide whether to read the papers or for the editors to take care of it

I'm happy for the editors to take it

Shawn: what about the scientific committee's reviews

SH: scientific committee have already given us that in the reviews, although most of them should be accepted

<markel> I'm happy with that

sh: editors will then look at the reviews of the scientific committee and then based on the advocates, we invite the changes based on the reviews and accept/reject the papers based on what the advocates decide. We also ask the scientific committee for their thoughts as well.
... we have only 6, so it's not as much problem as if there were 20 and we had to trim it down

SA: the decision for acceptance would be only the editors, or the scientific committee?

SH: based on the reviews of the scientific committee

<shawn> [ Shawn thinks the decision for acceptance should be reviewed by the entire Scientific Committee ]

SH: doing a review of each paper should give us a consensus and we should probably then accept it

SA: I would prefer that the decision for acceptance should come from the scientific committee as a whole, not the editors

SH: breaks the model for a standard conference
... other thoughts?

MV: if the scientific committee has to be involved in the last decision it involves them to have to read all of the papers. It is more democratic for the editors to make a decision based on our reviews

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say option to review, but not requirement to review

<yeliz> I agree withMarkel

Shawn: think that W3C position as a broad-review org. it would be wise to have the option for review, but not necessarily the requirement for review. Give the SC the option to review but not the requirement

SH: editors can make a recommendation and would allow a discussion
... seems strange to have to ask the SC to accept or not when we've already had 2 recommendations to accept and it's backed up by the editors

Shawn: realistically after the formal review, the editor's recommendations, and the suggestions for accept/rejection, the SC will look at the list and make a decision on how they feel about it. They may have a reason to want to look at some of the papers.
... SC will probably agree, but should have the opportunity

SH: other thoughts?

SA: think it's the process we used last time. The symposium chair prepares a list (excel sheet) where the papers are listed and the accept/rejection are visible to the SC and there is some discussion available.
... felt it worked well last time

SH: it wasn't the scientific committee - it was the core members

SA: only the scientific committee people participated on the calls

I wasn't on the call either, so it must have been just the SC

Yeliz: think it's fine for the editors to create an overview and it can be discussed with the SC members. What happens if not all the SC members can join the call - do we have to get other members? This time we have SC members who aren't in RDWG.

<yeliz> so all SC members will become advocates?

SH: we should make use of the Open Conf. system to make the papers available anon. to the SC members so we can open it up. Open for discussion - maybe a week to see if there are problems

<shawn> [ shawn thinks committee should be *invited* to participate in call to discuss, but do not have to. and also, that there is not a call to discuss unless needed ]

Shawn: that's good - if there are no concerns there doesn't need to be a call to discuss

Yeliz: are all SC then advocates?
... think this is a good idea. A call will not be necessary if they all agree, or if they can work it out in discussions between themselves
... we then document this for the upcoming seminar

SH: seems to be sorted.

Resolution: advocates make a recommendation based on the SC members and then open it for discussion to the SC members and then we report back to the main group

<yeliz> +1


<sharper> +1

<Yehya> +1

<shawn> +1

<shawn> RESOLUTION: advocates (Editors) make recommendations, provide to SciCommittee, who have one week to review and comment

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/results

sh: survey and the title question. Select the survey URL and see the results on the right hand side.
... 7 people support, 2 have comments - citation, couple of edits, Chaals - edits sent to Shadi
... all think it's good to publish after editorial notes

<yeliz> I haven't filled in the form

<yeliz> but count me as "publish as it is"

SA: they seem all editorial, so it's good to have the editorial review. Maybe some of the others the editors will want to bring back.

SH: there were emails about the title - have choice Research Report or Research note -

<shadi> [/me asking chaals to archive these comments publicly btw]

SH: need a vote

<yeliz> +1

SH: +1 for people who would like to keep it as a research note

<shawn> option 1: W3C Working Group Note. Research Note on XYZ Topic

Shawn: it remains a W3C note, but the title would be either a research note or a research report

<shawn> option 2: W3C Working Group Note. Research Report on XYZ Topic

<yeliz> +1

SH: next option - research report

<markel> +1

<shadi> +1 for research report


<shawn> +1 but not strongly either way

SH: we will call it a research report

Resolution: calling it a Research Report

<yeliz> yes, I am OK with this

Resolution: it is now fit to publish with the indicated typographic changes

SA: just to make sure - Markel is the only editor - are you guys going to make the typographical changes and send Shadi the updated html

Markel: do you have the last version available?

SA: Can send it to you, or I can send it to you

oops: download it or I can send it to you

SA: pick up the current draft and make the editors while I look after moving it up

Markel: will do it this week

SA: this is now a formal resolution to publish despite the changes - does anyone want to see a final draft after the editors - changing the title and typographical changes which will be published for all, and the bib ref moved further up
... does anyone need to see a draft?

<yeliz> not me, I am OK to have it published


<shawn> not me

<sharper> no

<Yehya> no

SA: also send this out by email for those not present at this meeting - need to discuss any issues before publication

Text Customization

SH: Shawn will take us through this

Shawn: big issue is to decide about pre-call whether 3&4 are together. We had some discussion on the list about idea on doing them together or separately. Simon should manage the discussion on that part

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to share insights from discussion with Klaus

SA: talked with Klaus this week about it. Klaus feels that he shouldn't be holding up the text customization as it's ready to go, but he does feel it's important that the broader context is also addressed - 3 different aspects. Readability, understandability and lay-out/illustrations/graphics. There is a risk to miss out the inter-relationships between these. He wants to add those topics to

the WIKI - interrelated topics so that when we go to the pre-call we can point to the WIKI that there are closely related issues and you can send your ideas/thoughts and future considerations. Maybe also think of the series of webinars. But the bottom line is not to hold up the text customization - doesn't want to hold it up for 3-4 weeks.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest doing pre-call with topic 3 as is now. then to try to get the broader issues written up before the full call goes out.

Shawn - based on that input, I would suggest we do the pre-call for topic 3 as it is now, but try to make sure the broader issues are well written up before the final call goes out

SH: the precall that is in the URL. Is it the up to date one?
... there are 2 pre-call thoughts out there.

Shawn: the topic 3 only

Yeliz: not sure about the discussion. Idea is to go through this one for this topic and then have the other one.

SH: last week we decided it would be a combined topic - but we need to make this week's decision final.

Resolution: this precall is for one topic
... topic 3 only

SA: Klaus talked about the risk of looking too narrowly and missing the broader context - especially if we are talking about cognitive abilities as well - such as layout.
... Simon was talking to other groups - is there input from this?
... Klaus have this as a topic, but make it broader

SH: the group may or not decide to go with this idea - need to decide about 2 calls, or 2 seminars close together showing the inter-relationships
... we should be able to link these together in a note

Yeliz: there is no need to limit ourselves to limit ourselves to 1 topic. We can always have broader topics later. Another one could use the results of this up-coming seminar.

<shawn> +1 to Yeliz that the results from this symposium on a specific topic provides input into the symposium on the broader issues

Yeliz: this is not the last seminar, so why should we make it broader and slow down the process. Have this one and follow up seminars later

SA: agree with Yeliz and Klaus also. The general idea is to keep the topic as is. We haven't talked about follow-up - will it be the next seminar or later down the road. Sugggesitons - have a rough idea that we can mention in the pre-call - ie is this the first one in a series - should be mentioned in the pre-call. Some people who are interested and want to submit, we should be able to have a

plan. Second suggestion: this plan should be discussed with the WAI coordination group for better perspective.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest she make minor revision to scope section to leave open the possibility of the broader symposium

Shawn: in the scope it points to related topics. If we are thinking of something broader we can change that section - may be addressed in an up-=coming symposium. For now keep it a bit vague and edit it as plans firm up. Timing - hoping to do precall 2 weeks ago, do we need to wait another week for pre-call, or can we do it now with the idea that the static email will have little information but

point to the page as it is refined?

SH: Timing needs to be right and they are related topics. I favour that we say they are related and that easy to read will be next and that papers submitted to this call and we feel should be part of the easy to read then they might be forwarded on to those editors.
... I propose I send it to the coordination group to see what they think. Why do we need to talk to the coordination group about why the group needs to be involved withthis

SA: less process, more content.

SH: I want to see if we are going to combine it or not. We'd like their input about the 2 topics we will run next to each other - we are grateful for their suggestions. We can tell them there will be 2 calls with mentions in the note. We will send them the pre-call next week.

SA: get their input before we send the pre-call - and get their input. We shouldn't issue the pre-call or call before the topic has passed

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say text customization has been mentioned in CG

<shawn> 4 April

Shawn: 4 April we took it to CG and they were given the link to the draft symposium page which has not changed significantly changed since then

SH: in that case, maybe we don't need to go through that loop - they can give us some background or resources. But if they have already had it, don't know why we need to send it back

SA: going to directly talk to CG

SH: will write an email today and ask for their input. mention we sent it to them on 4 April.

<shawn> [ Shawn agrees it would be good for Simon to directly contact CG and ask for input -- I 'm just not sure we need to wait on the rpe-call. ]

SA: good for CG to have it as an agenda item

SH: see if we get any comments back from them to open this up. Tell them we hope to send out the precall in a week's time, we haven't received comments and we're presuming it's okay. If there is a problem SH will have talked to them.

SA: okay, good idea. Point back to the 4 April and ask about their comments.

SH: that way we can get the precall out in good time

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say pre-call vs. more details

SH: Shawn do you have the URL

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to object to the pre-call

Shawn: I'll send it to you. We have a pre-call with a static email which only points to the page for more info. The page for more info we can continue to update. How soon can we approve the pre-call that we can't change vs the more detail. Tell CG we're planning to send the pre-call, but let us know if you have comments on the symposium deails we can continue to refine

SA: precall does not mention the related topics - is in the scope section. It has changed since then.

Shawn: I have taken an action to change that based on info from Klaus

SA: precall is not ready to go out yet

<yeliz> I tink the precall is ready

Shawn: precall doesn't say anything about the details - do we have to add info to that as opposed to the symposium page

SA: add that we are aware that there are other related topics and for someone interested in other topics is there something they can do - need to be clear

Shawn: we don't have anything to point them to yet

SH: insteadof having something to point them to, this makes up the first of related seminars including Easy to Ready which will be announced fairly quickly - and link to WIKI page.

Yeliz: why do we need to say this in the pre-call?

SA: I don't think it's a good idea to leave readers confused - we are trying to build up credibility and we need to be as clear as possible and not leave any reader confused about the work/scope and where they can contribute

Shawn: don't want to leave people confused, need to get it out soon and revise the scope. This is a pre-call - if you're interested, here's where you go for more information. Info on a broader topic will be coming up. More details will follow...

<yeliz> I agree with Shawn

Yeliz: i agree with Shawn and Shadi - not confuse people. But I don't think this precall is confusing people. As long as the precall says you will be receiving more info in a month's time

<shawn> ACTION: Shawn update Scope to be more clear that there may be broader topic info coming soon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rd-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Update Scope to be more clear that there may be broader topic info coming soon [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-05-30].

SH: we will have to wait a few days-a week for email to CG. Vote: do we think the precall needs changing?
... add additional text from the scope and objectives that talks abou the Easy to Read aspects.

SA: we need to have a plan - will we have a 2nd one on ETR or what. We need to be able to mention our plan so that it is clear to the reader.

<markel> ..as long as we have editors to do so

SA: do you have the editors and the committment for the next one? Is Klaus alone or are others working with him?

<yeliz> I think we should not wait

Shawn: it's going to take a few weeks to define those things? Do we wait a minimum of 2-4 weeks to sort this out? Do we need to wait the pre-call for this?

<yeliz> it will take time to finalise details

<yeliz> +1

Agreement with Shawn's statement: Yeliz

No, that we just me scribing

I think I'd like to see more clarification on a plan

<markel> I would wait until we have editors

<markel> for the next topic

<markel> yes

If we are mentioning something about the next topic, we don't have the editors etc. for the next one sorted out yet. I don't see the point.

Shawn: the pre-call wouldn't have anything - vague. Scope - we might have...

Yehya: agree with Markel. We can only mention other topics if we really have the editors and when we will have the topic. Maybe don't say anything about it, or we will have to be clear on when it will happen.

SA: we can work on lining up the next topic - talk with Klaus to see if you want to pair him with someone else. We can work out the plan more with Klaus over the next week.

SH: on the Wiki the ETR on is also written by Andrea, so we need to ask both people (including Shadi) would you be interested in being an editor?

SA: not sure at this stage. I've not considered myself as an editor for that topic.

SH: I'll send out an email to list asking for editor for ETR. If we can't get an editor, so we shouldn't be holding up a topic when we can't get editors sorted. Get discussion this week. Need to get precall moving next Wednesday once we have topics back from cR

<markel> bye!

SH: closing call now and will email.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Shawn update Scope to be more clear that there may be broader topic info coming soon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rd-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/24 12:19:40 $