16:15:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #council
16:15:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-irc
16:15:19 <koalie> Zakim, this will be 2686
16:15:19 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, koalie
16:18:47 <koalie> Zakim, list?
16:18:47 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, koalie.
16:18:54 <koalie> Zakim, conference?
16:18:54 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, koalie.
16:19:21 <koalie> Zakim, list conferences
16:19:21 <Zakim> I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM, Team_Global(review)8:00AM, Team_Comm()10:00AM, T&S_EGOV(Eurasian)4:00AM, T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM active
16:19:24 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WF_TF()9:00AM, UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM, Styl_XSL-FO-()11:00AM, XML_QueryWG(XSLT)11:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, VB_VBWG(CCXML)11:00AM, SW_HCLS(TMO)11:00AM
16:21:04 <koalie> Zakim, this will be COUN
16:21:05 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, koalie
16:21:11 <koalie> Zakim, this will be TEAM_COUN
16:21:11 <Ian> it's in 40 mins
16:21:12 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, koalie
16:51:10 <sorin_stefan> sorin_stefan has joined #council
16:51:41 <sorin_stefan> hi everybody :)
16:52:52 <Ian> zakim, this will be COUN
16:52:52 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Ian
16:53:13 <koalie> hi sorin_stefan
16:53:16 <koalie> Zakim, list
16:53:16 <Zakim> I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM, Team_Global(review)8:00AM, Team_(site)16:40Z, T&S_EGOV(Eurasian)4:00AM active
16:53:18 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM, Styl_XSL-FO-()11:00AM, HTML_WG()12:00PM, XML_XSLWG()12:00PM, XML_QueryWG(XSLT)11:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, VB_VBWG(CCXML)11:00AM,
16:53:18 <Zakim> ... SW_HCLS(TMO)11:00AM
16:53:54 <Suresh> Suresh has joined #council
16:54:49 <Michael> Ian: Team_COUN ?
16:55:15 <Ian> zakim, this will be 2686
16:55:15 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Ian
16:55:22 <Ian> seems like nto scheduled
16:56:08 <koalie> Zakim, this will be Team_Comm
16:56:08 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, koalie
16:58:40 <Ian> zakim, this will be 2686
16:58:40 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Ian
16:58:48 <Ian> zakim, this will be Team_(Coun)
16:58:48 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Ian
16:58:57 <Suresh> The code says restricted!
16:59:06 <Ian> we are having it fixed
16:59:20 <koalie> Suresh, we're looking at fixing this, sorry!
16:59:55 <Ian> zakim, this will be Team_(Coun)
16:59:55 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Ian
17:02:17 <koalie> Zakim, this will be 2686
17:02:17 <Zakim> ok, koalie; I see Team_Comm()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:22 <Ian> zakim, what's the code?
17:02:22 <Zakim> the conference code is 2686 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ian
17:02:46 <Milan> Milan has joined #council
17:03:09 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:03:09 <Zakim> Team_Comm()12:00PM has not yet started, Ian
17:03:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:03:25 <Ian> zakim, this is team_Comm
17:03:26 <Zakim> ok, Ian; that matches Team_Comm()12:00PM
17:03:29 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:03:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.541.592.aaaa, Ian, koalie
17:03:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:03:30 <Zakim> + +1.972.373.aabb
17:03:43 <Suresh> Zakim aabb is Suresh
17:03:43 <Zakim> + +1.514.572.aacc
17:04:00 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
17:04:01 <Suresh> zakim, aabb is Suresh
17:04:01 <Zakim> +Suresh; got it
17:04:06 <Ian> zakim, aaaa is Milan
17:04:06 <Zakim> +Milan; got it
17:04:11 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:04:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Milan, Ian, koalie, Suresh, +1.514.572.aacc, Josh_Soref
17:04:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:04:20 <Ian> zakim, aacc is Sorin
17:04:20 <Zakim> +Sorin; got it
17:04:26 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:04:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Milan, Ian, koalie, Suresh, Sorin, Josh_Soref
17:04:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:04:29 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:04:40 <koalie> koalie has changed the topic to: council call Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200 <tel:+1.617.761.6200>, conference 2686#
17:04:42 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, make logs public
17:04:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', Josh_Soref
17:04:48 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:04:50 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:04:52 <Ian> agenda+ policy
17:04:56 <koalie> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2012Nov/0006.html
17:04:56 <Ian> agenda+ communications
17:04:56 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:05:01 <Ian> agenda+ education
17:05:07 <Josh_Soref> Chair: Ian
17:05:08 <Ian> agenda+ infrastructure
17:05:11 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:05:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:05:22 <Josh_Soref> s/hi everybody :)//
17:05:27 <Josh_Soref> s/hi sorin_stefan//
17:05:32 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian: Team_COUN ?//
17:05:38 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:05:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Milan, Ian, koalie, Suresh, Sorin, Josh_Soref
17:05:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:05:41 <Josh_Soref> s/seems like nto scheduled//
17:05:48 <Josh_Soref> s/The code says restricted!//
17:05:52 <Josh_Soref> s/we are having it fixed//
17:05:58 <Josh_Soref> s/Suresh, we're looking at fixing this, sorry!//
17:06:01 <Josh_Soref> s/Zakim aabb is Suresh//
17:06:05 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:06:09 <Josh_Soref> scribe: Josh_Soref
17:06:18 <Josh_Soref> Ian: I sent an agenda for the blog
17:06:23 <Josh_Soref> ... and coralie forwarded it along
17:06:27 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:06:41 <Josh_Soref> ... the agenda has a summary, a bit about policy, a bit on infrastructure
17:06:50 <Josh_Soref> ... Milan has suggested the template make clear group practices
17:06:56 <Josh_Soref> ... any other agenda items people want to go over?
17:06:59 <Ian> agenda: http://www.w3.org/community/council/2012/11/14/scheduling-november-2012-teleconf-on-tpac-2012-discussion/
17:07:12 <koalie> Zakim, agenda?
17:07:12 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
17:07:13 <Zakim> 1. policy [from Ian]
17:07:13 <Zakim> 2. communications [from Ian]
17:07:13 <Zakim> 3. education [from Ian]
17:07:13 <Zakim> 4. infrastructure [from Ian]
17:07:14 <Ian> zakim, take up item 1
17:07:15 <Zakim> agendum 1. "policy" taken up [from Ian]
17:07:29 <Josh_Soref> Ian: immediately following the breakout section during TPAC
17:07:30 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Chair_selection
17:07:45 <Josh_Soref> ... i set about having discussions with a variety of people about the Chair selection algorithm
17:08:01 <Josh_Soref> ... we were trying to address a situation where some participants in the group felt the chair wasn't listening to some of the group
17:08:07 <Josh_Soref> s/group/group's views/
17:08:22 <Josh_Soref> ... the extant mechanism intended to give participants control of the chairs
17:08:25 <Josh_Soref> ... was underspecified
17:08:36 <Josh_Soref> ... so clarifying group members choose their chairs
17:08:42 <Josh_Soref> ... the result is a chair algorithm discussion
17:08:51 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:08:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:09:07 <Josh_Soref> ... at a high level
17:09:12 <Josh_Soref> ... Group starts in "Trusted Mode"
17:09:17 <Josh_Soref> ... minimal process/no process
17:09:26 <Josh_Soref> ... as long as group is able to manage itself
17:09:30 <Josh_Soref> ... if there's disagreement
17:09:33 <Josh_Soref> ... and a vote of no confidence
17:09:38 <Josh_Soref> ... and the next phase kicks in
17:09:43 <Josh_Soref> ... where there's some sort of election
17:09:54 <Josh_Soref> ... if there continues to be strife, then the Team steps in
17:09:58 <Josh_Soref> ... independent of the details
17:10:08 <Josh_Soref> ... if you on IRC think that that's a useful phrasing of things
17:10:17 <Milan> +1
17:10:20 <Josh_Soref> s/phrasing/phasing (phase 1-2-3)
17:10:23 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to see a +1
17:10:40 <Josh_Soref> ... Does anyone think that's a bad approach in principle?
17:11:06 <Michael> Why not create an umbrella election system for all groups from the start?
17:11:11 <Josh_Soref> [ None ]
17:11:33 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
17:11:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Milan, Ian, koalie, Suresh, Sorin, Josh_Soref
17:11:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see Milan, Suresh, sorin_stefan, RRSAgent, Zakim, koalie, Josh_Soref, timeless, Michael, Ian, trackbot
17:11:42 <Ian> Michael, if you wish to participate, please join the call
17:11:49 <koalie> this is Michael Cooper who is on IRC only
17:11:54 <Ian> BUt to answer your question: to allow groups to operate differently.
17:12:07 <Josh_Soref> Ian: nothing prevents a group from jumping to phase 2
17:12:17 <Josh_Soref> ... but i don't want to force anything
17:12:23 <Josh_Soref> ... if i can avoid it
17:12:29 <Josh_Soref> ... this is a transition to the template tool
17:12:36 <Josh_Soref> ... we should give people tools, but i don't want to force them
17:12:42 <Josh_Soref> ... Now comes the question
17:12:49 <Josh_Soref> ... how do you describe an appropriate phase 2 (election)
17:12:57 <Josh_Soref> ... without doubling the current size of the CG process
17:13:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i did the process in the long form to try to avoid gaming
17:13:17 <Josh_Soref> ... it was hard to do in a small amount of space
17:13:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i tried to do something in a wiki
17:13:55 <Josh_Soref> ... and then reached a simple algorithm
17:14:06 <Josh_Soref> ... and then Wayne Carr proposed a simple algorithm
17:14:13 <Josh_Soref> ... I think Phase 2 is
17:14:19 <Josh_Soref> ... if we can keep it to a paragraph
17:14:27 <Josh_Soref> ... "participants choose their chairs"
17:14:31 <Josh_Soref> ... and a new section to the document
17:14:41 <Josh_Soref> ... the question is whether people have input on the selection algorithm
17:14:46 <Josh_Soref> ... which tries to prevent scenarios
17:14:55 <Josh_Soref> "I'm not happy with the chairing"
17:15:02 <Josh_Soref> half the group says "we're not happy"
17:15:10 <Josh_Soref> chair gets 50 new people to join the group
17:15:23 <Josh_Soref> Ian: there's text to prevent this
17:15:36 <Josh_Soref> ... there's text for ties
17:15:51 <Ian> Josh_Soref: I'm ok with wayne's approach to co-chairs
17:15:58 <Ian> ..and letting them figure out whether one drops out or not
17:16:00 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe/
17:16:04 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe/
17:16:18 <Josh_Soref> s/../.../
17:16:22 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:16:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:16:36 <Josh_Soref> Ian: you could simplify the algorithm
17:16:43 <Josh_Soref> ... so it only takes one person to trigger an election
17:16:46 <Suresh> If we could collapse to one algorithm that would be ideal
17:17:22 <Josh_Soref> ... there's another piece to prevent another election from happening for 2 months
17:17:29 <Josh_Soref> ... to give the newly elected chair some time to prove they're ok
17:17:32 <Suresh> q+
17:17:38 <Ian> ack sur
17:17:46 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe we don't need the 5 participants bit with the 60 days
17:17:59 <Josh_Soref> Suresh: having 2 aglorithms seems too much
17:18:07 <Josh_Soref> ... rather than "simple" and "more complicated"
17:18:22 <Josh_Soref> Ian: i'm only proposing "no algorithm" if there's a problem you have to use "one algorithm"
17:18:28 <Josh_Soref> ... the notes are just notes
17:18:44 <Josh_Soref> ... to see how much you can get out of the process in as little text
17:18:53 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't know which you're trying to say
17:18:58 <Josh_Soref> Suresh: just the latter
17:19:07 <Josh_Soref> ... on "5", i think a percentage instead of an absolute number
17:19:13 <Josh_Soref> ... groups could be very big
17:19:20 <Josh_Soref> Ian: my sense on that one is
17:19:31 <Josh_Soref> ... average group size is 25
17:19:34 <Josh_Soref> ... 5 is about 20% of that
17:19:43 <Josh_Soref> ... for big groups, you'd never be able to trigger an election
17:19:53 <Josh_Soref> ... we chose 5 to express support for a group
17:20:23 <Josh_Soref> ... in a big group, you'd basically not have a chance to trigger an election
17:20:25 <Josh_Soref> ... do we want that?
17:20:32 <Josh_Soref> Suresh: if there's a chair, and a motion to change the chair
17:20:44 <Josh_Soref> ... the people requesting for changing chairs should be significant
17:20:51 <Josh_Soref> ... if 20-30% are upset, it makes a case
17:20:58 <Josh_Soref> ... but if 5 in a group of 200
17:21:04 <Josh_Soref> Ian: we don't have to resolve it here
17:21:30 <Ian> scribe: Ian
17:21:43 <Ian> Josh_Soref: In a big group, only a small number of active participants
17:21:50 <Ian> ...hard to get percentage among inactive participants
17:21:57 <Ian> ...in theory you want more of a quorum.
17:22:09 <koalie> s/scribe: Ian/scribenick: Ian/
17:22:29 <Ian> ...you want to force people to nay/yea and ignore those who don't vote.
17:23:04 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:23:14 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ian (58%), Milan (25%)
17:23:31 <Ian> Milan: +1 to One vote per organization.
17:23:45 <koalie> scribenick: koalie
17:24:13 <Josh_Soref> s/coralie/koalie/
17:25:12 <koalie> Ian: if we go %age model, maybe we don't need the 60 days
17:25:35 <Zakim> + +1.503.264.aadd
17:25:49 <Ian> zakim, aadd is Wayne
17:25:49 <Zakim> +Wayne; got it
17:26:05 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
17:26:05 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
17:26:42 <koalie> Ian: support on the call for 1-2-3 phasing, can 5 person trigger an election, or a percentage
17:27:02 <koalie> ... Josh_Soref's amendment is that only people who are active may weigh in
17:27:25 <koalie> s/support on/Summarizing for Wayne who just joined -- there is support on/
17:27:31 <wayne_carr> wayne_carr has joined #council
17:27:51 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute me
17:27:51 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
17:28:08 <koalie> ... we don't have to resolve this on the call today
17:28:24 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
17:28:24 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
17:28:36 <koalie> Ian: I want to see whether there's support for current proposal
17:28:54 <koalie> ... either small number of people, or percentage, or percentage of active people
17:28:54 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute me
17:28:54 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
17:28:59 <koalie> ... any objections to any of those
17:29:12 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
17:29:12 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
17:29:25 <koalie> Milan: I don't like 3)
17:29:45 <koalie> Ian: the idea is you put out a survey, if someone doesn't bother to answer, you ignore them
17:30:01 <koalie> ... the percentage determination is based on those who answered the survey
17:30:16 <koalie> ... this is a "should be a vote".
17:30:39 <koalie> Milan: I propose to keep it simple, and go for "5 people"
17:30:50 <koalie> Ian: OK. We can change that number.
17:31:18 <Ian> s/Milan/Wayne
17:31:25 <koalie> ... which is good for groups which have > 5 participants
17:31:46 <Ian> W3C Process appeal is 5%
17:31:50 <koalie> Wayne: W3C process says 5%
17:31:52 <koalie> Ian: Yes
17:31:58 <koalie> Zakim, agenda?
17:31:58 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
17:32:00 <Zakim> 1. policy [from Ian]
17:32:00 <Zakim> 2. communications [from Ian]
17:32:00 <Zakim> 3. education [from Ian]
17:32:00 <Zakim> 4. infrastructure [from Ian]
17:32:06 <koalie> Ian: People can continue discussion by list
17:32:16 <koalie> ... thanks for discussion that already happened on the list
17:32:25 <koalie> ... I invite people to annotate the wiki, edit, add comments
17:32:31 <koalie> ... we'll continue to massage that
17:32:38 <koalie> ... summary:
17:32:43 <koalie> ... 2 questions came up
17:32:51 <koalie> ... 1) all groups should use the same algo
17:33:18 <koalie> ... 1-2-3- steps or whether 3-phase approach is preferable
17:33:27 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
17:33:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
17:33:28 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:33:28 <Zakim> 2. communications [from Ian]
17:33:40 <koalie> Zakim, take up item 1
17:33:40 <Zakim> agendum 1. "policy" taken up [from Ian]
17:33:54 <koalie> Ian: Second part of policy item is about copyright topic
17:34:00 <koalie> ... initially 1 IPR model
17:34:06 <koalie> ... with two agreements.
17:34:19 <koalie> ... both have copyright commitments and patents commitments
17:35:03 <koalie> ... for groups that don't need patents commitments, we initially said "too bad", but now, we have enough groups in that case that we need to reconsider
17:35:15 <koalie> ... we need lighter-weight commitments.
17:35:38 <koalie> ... one of the risks I heard is that this is going to turn into google groups or such, but I'm not worried
17:35:49 <koalie> ... it's an implementation issue that needs a checkbox
17:36:04 <koalie> ... next question: what is a group needs patents commitments?
17:36:12 <koalie> ... we can close that group and start a new
17:36:37 <koalie> ... so I think all this can be addressed; it implies some changes to the policy, and implementation time
17:37:14 <koalie> ... second topic is changing to CC-BY
17:37:38 <Ian> wayne_carr: +1 to need for copyright-only gorups
17:37:48 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe/
17:37:49 <koalie> Wayne: +1 for need for copyright only groups
17:38:16 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1 for wayne_carr
17:38:22 <Josh_Soref> s/Josh_Soref/scribe/
17:38:26 <koalie> [Ian gives background]
17:39:22 <Ian> proposal 2 - move copyright to cc-by
17:39:23 <Josh_Soref> q+ to say i'm not opposed
17:39:31 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, ack me
17:39:31 <Zakim> unmuting Josh_Soref
17:39:32 <Ian> wayne_carr: sounds fine
17:39:33 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to say i'm not opposed
17:39:33 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
17:39:35 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
17:39:35 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
17:39:40 <Ian> Josh_Soref: not opposed
17:39:48 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe/
17:40:13 <koalie> Ian: next copyright topic has to do with terms that are different from W3C's terms
17:40:22 <koalie> s/with terms/with people who need terms/
17:40:47 <koalie> ... because our copyright is permissive, people can be definition, license under alternative copyright terms --that isn't in dispute.
17:41:06 <koalie> ... it should also be the case that you can't force people to grant patent commitments
17:41:36 <koalie> ... question comes up: whether we can to create where we require people to sign other terms --this isn't my concern, we'll update the FAQ
17:41:55 <koalie> s/my concern/my current expectation/
17:42:06 <koalie> ... any reactions to that?
17:42:11 <koalie> [none]
17:42:15 <Ian> zakim, take up item 2
17:42:15 <Zakim> agendum 2. "communications" taken up [from Ian]
17:42:35 <koalie> Ian: one of the big topics at the breakout session had to do about how we talk about this work
17:42:48 <koalie> ... specifically how to distinguish from WG products
17:43:14 <koalie> ... current mechanisms: CG work is not listed under /TR/ where we list WG products
17:43:21 <koalie> ... we use a different style
17:43:35 <koalie> ... policy says they can't look like a WG product
17:43:38 <Ian> "Community Submissions must not use a style that will cause them to be confused with W3C Technical Reports. W3C may publish additional policies to govern publication of Community Submissions."
17:44:04 <koalie> Ian: third, we require boilerplate text that this isn't on the standards track.
17:44:26 <koalie> ... Since the launch, people have pointed out a couple of other things
17:44:39 <koalie> ... 1) use of the word final
17:45:13 <koalie> s/use of/no use of/
17:45:22 <koalie> ... we can certainly change that.
17:45:29 <koalie> ... 2) use of the word "specification"
17:45:39 <koalie> ... we talk about "reports"
17:45:54 <koalie> ... we may not be consistent throughout the documentation and we can fix that
17:46:12 <koalie> ... "report" type of specification vs. type of specification
17:46:25 <koalie> ... what we mean: primer, use-case, etc.
17:46:49 <koalie> ... I don't mind avoiding "specification" as a class of things,
17:47:17 <wayne_carr> q+
17:47:19 <koalie> ... but I am not sure I want to forbid people to use the word specification
17:47:28 <koalie> ack w
17:47:29 <Ian> ack wayne
17:47:37 <Suresh> q+
17:47:51 <koalie> Wayne: I thought they needed to use "community specs"
17:48:00 <koalie> Ian: two contexts
17:48:06 <koalie> ... one is the title of a document
17:48:27 <koalie> ... I'd push back "SVG specification" but not "fooML specification"
17:48:47 <koalie> ... and then @@, we call them "Community Groups Reports"
17:49:09 <koalie> Wayne: overall list called "report" is ok
17:49:23 <Suresh> +1 to calling final deliverable a "Community Report"
17:49:30 <koalie> Ian: you'd push back on using "specification" and replace with "community report"
17:49:41 <Ian> wayne_carr: sounds good to have reports on index, and in title MAYBE add "community" before "specification" if specification is in the title.
17:49:41 <koalie> Wayne: Yes, that's what I heard people concerned about
17:49:46 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:49:46 <Ian> ack sur
17:49:50 <Josh_Soref> q+ Milan
17:50:34 <Ian> Suresh: I think calling the class 'Community Report' would work
17:51:15 <koalie> Suresh: people tend to read specifications with expectations (should, must, etc.)
17:51:36 <koalie> Ian: CGs are allowed to do that, they can do the sort of specification you're talking about.
17:51:54 <koalie> ... the only question was whether the specification title should say "fooML" or "the fooML specification"
17:52:11 <koalie> ... I heard people shy away from the word specification anywhere.
17:52:12 <Ian> ack milan
17:52:16 <Josh_Soref> q+ Josh_Soref
17:52:32 <koalie> Milan: I'm uncomfortable with "community specification" just using that term as a title
17:52:57 <koalie> Ian: FooML will be called a Community Report
17:53:00 <Ian> Proposed: class is "Community Group Report"
17:53:05 <Milan> +1
17:53:07 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute me
17:53:07 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
17:53:07 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
17:53:22 <koalie> Josh_Soref: where is class?
17:53:25 <Ian> From the process:
17:53:25 <koalie> Ian: the index
17:53:26 <Ian> "The label “Community Group Report” refers to any document produced by a Group. "
17:54:54 <koalie> Ian: second question about the document's title
17:55:22 <koalie> ... I don't mind "specification" in the title if that what the document does
17:55:38 <Suresh> +1
17:55:41 <Ian> Milan: Suggest that if "specification" is used in title,, prefix with "Non-Standard"
17:55:46 <Josh_Soref> +1
17:55:58 <koalie> +1
17:56:08 <Josh_Soref> s/+1/koalie: +1/
17:56:35 <wayne_carr> it wasn't me saying I don't like specification
17:56:48 <koalie> Suresh: @@
17:56:51 <wayne_carr> I think community specification in a title is fine
17:57:25 <koalie> Ian: Status aren't required in CGs
17:57:44 <koalie> ... we could have a sub-title that says "draft" or "stable", or other vocabulary
17:57:45 <Suresh> Wouldn't the final deliverable be called a ''XX CG final report" instead of a specification?
17:57:57 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
17:57:57 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
17:58:02 <koalie> Ian: I'm reluctant to put "draft" in the title as it's metadata
17:58:43 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:59:02 <koalie> Ian: you could have a watermark that says "not a standard"
17:59:14 <koalie> ... I'm throwing out ideas I've heard
17:59:14 <Ian> ack Josh
17:59:18 <Ian> q+ Josh
17:59:36 <Ian> ack Josh
17:59:43 <koalie> Suresh: need to indicated it's not a standard
17:59:54 <koalie> Ian: the requirement already exists, I've heard this is not enough.
17:59:56 <koalie> ack josh
18:00:20 <koalie> Josh_Soref: random parsers could easily avoid a watermark
18:00:33 <koalie> ... any form of metadata can easily not ne noticed.
18:00:51 <koalie> Ian: I wouldn't say there should be one exclusive way
18:00:58 <koalie> ... I want to enhance the current requirement
18:01:16 <Ian> Josh_Soref: I think we need even more nearer the title
18:01:19 <koalie> Josh_Soref: reporters and managers are likely to see the word specification
18:01:48 <koalie> ... wikipedia's definition of specification is that it's a technical standard
18:02:25 <koalie> Ian: we shouldn't struggle with the word "specification" which is accurate in some cases, we need to enhance the distinction
18:02:48 <koalie> Josh_Soref: a report is complete, you got that when it's done
18:02:48 <wayne_carr> q+
18:03:00 <koalie> Ian: can call incomplete report a "draft report"
18:03:15 <Suresh> Actually, I don't see current W3C specs using the word "specification" in the title e.g. HTML5, Widget Interface, so the question is how important is this?
18:03:28 <Suresh> Atleast not many of them currently
18:04:09 <koalie> Ian: proposal "fooML specification, a draft community report"
18:04:15 <koalie> q?
18:04:33 <wayne_carr> q-
18:04:36 <koalie> Suresh: current w3c specs don't use "specification" in the title, it uses the technology
18:04:37 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-all
18:04:58 <koalie> Ian: I agree a proportion of them do
18:05:46 <Ian> wayne_carr: where it is a specification it's important to say
18:05:52 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
18:05:53 <Ian> ..and you really end up with one
18:06:02 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: CSS used to have documents with 'specification' in title, they have moved away from doing so
18:06:02 <Ian> ...whether it's in the title or not is irrelevant
18:06:06 <Josh_Soref> s/Josh_Soref/scribe/
18:06:22 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe
18:06:23 <Josh_Soref> s/Ian/scribe
18:06:31 <Josh_Soref> s/..and/...and/
18:06:51 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/
18:07:10 <koalie> Ian: I'm inviting people to suggest alternatives on the list
18:07:18 <koalie> Milan: boilerplate is not sufficient
18:07:22 <koalie> Ian: Yes, agreed.
18:08:14 <Suresh> Need to drop off ...sorry!
18:08:21 <Zakim> -Suresh
18:08:24 <koalie> [Suresh needs to drop off]
18:08:28 <Ian> zakim, drop item 4
18:08:28 <Zakim> agendum 4, infrastructure, dropped
18:08:30 <Ian> zakim, take up item 3
18:08:30 <Zakim> agendum 3. "education" taken up [from Ian]
18:08:35 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
18:08:35 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
18:09:19 <koalie> Ian: documentation (we have a fair amount, we're waiting for new design to fully integrate)
18:09:22 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/wiki/ModernGuide
18:09:40 <koalie> Ian: and we're also separately working on overhauling documentation for Chairs
18:10:00 <koalie> ... A lot is going to happen in terms of good practicies
18:10:05 <koalie> s/cies/ces/
18:10:13 <koalie> ... Now, on charter habits
18:10:24 <koalie> ... I heard let's have a draft charter template
18:10:40 <koalie> ... we already have a charter generator that is available to WGs
18:10:54 <koalie> ... a static document might be enough to get started.
18:11:07 <koalie> ... anything people want to call out?
18:11:22 <koalie> ... I'd welcome if someone wanted to take a stab at drafting that document.
18:11:35 <koalie> ... coremob cg have already robust material to draw on
18:11:38 <koalie> ... any volunteer?
18:12:23 <koalie> [Sorin Stefan, on the call, made the CGs design and is working on a new version that is great]
18:12:31 <koalie> [no volunteer]
18:12:45 <koalie> [Ian and Coralie will work on that doc and socialize it]
18:13:06 <koalie> Ian: Milan wanted to cover how we raise awareness in a group about the group's operating procedures
18:13:29 <Zakim> -Sorin
18:14:16 <koalie> Milan: as long as a group wasn't posing any problem, fine, but when there are and there are no laws, some are needed
18:14:40 <koalie> Ian: Current process says groups can have operating procedures
18:15:09 <koalie> ... Implementation of your comment: when a group has such procedures, give us the URL and it appears near the "join" button.
18:15:23 <koalie> ... if group has none, we show a warning
18:15:34 <wayne_carr> q+
18:15:39 <koalie> ... that this group had no additional procedures other than those in the policy
18:15:47 <koalie> Milan: It has to be a strong warning
18:15:51 <koalie> ... I got badly burned
18:16:14 <koalie> Ian: do you want to suggest language on the list for such a warning?
18:16:15 <Ian> ack wayne
18:16:18 <Ian> Milan: Yes
18:16:19 <koalie> Milan: Sure
18:17:08 <Ian> wayne_carr: Distinguish "Not yet provide" from some other thing
18:17:21 <Ian> ...in other words, groups should want to document their procedures and
18:17:37 <Ian> ...cause the "warning" to go away
18:17:47 <koalie> ACTION: Milan to suggest wording on the list for a warning that a group doesn't have additional procedures beyond the policy's
18:17:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Suggest wording on the list for a warning that a group doesn't have additional procedures beyond the policy's [on Milan Young - due 2012-12-06].
18:18:04 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
18:19:02 <koalie> Ian: I want to avoid requirement about decision-making
18:19:22 <koalie> ... I heard Milan say he's ok with disclosure as starting point
18:24:52 <Ian> wayne_carr: If someone said "We will listen to you but do whatever we want" then I think it should be shut down
18:25:00 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
18:25:20 <Ian> Milan: I agree it should not be a requirement that we have "fairness" in the democratic sense. They do need to disclose.
18:25:29 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
18:25:38 <koalie> Ian: I will go back to this
18:26:28 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is on the call?
18:26:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see Milan, Ian, koalie, Josh_Soref (muted), Wayne
18:28:38 <Ian> wayne_carr: In the real situation where there are a small number of companies that dominate a market and they decide everything,
18:28:45 <koalie> s/Ian/scribe/
18:29:01 <Ian> the question is...does W3C want to enable it or not.
18:30:08 <koalie> Ian: we recommend consensu but do not require it. Not opposed to some minimal @@@
18:30:15 <koalie> s/consensu/consensus/
18:30:24 <koalie> s/@@@/decision process/
18:30:46 <Ian> from coremob charter:
18:30:49 <Ian> "It is the Chair’s responsibility to ensure that the decision process is fair, respects the consensus of the CG, and does not unreasonably favor or discriminate against any group participant or their employer."
18:30:53 <Ian> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/
18:32:06 <Ian> IJ: I would support good practice like that in charter template
18:32:10 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
18:32:11 <Ian> actions?
18:32:18 <koalie> [Josh_Soref leaves]
18:32:25 <Ian> action: Ian to work with Coralie on a draft charter template
18:32:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Work with Coralie on a draft charter template [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].
18:32:50 <Ian> action: Ian to review simple algorithm for chair selection and annotate with some options that we discussede
18:32:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Review simple algorithm for chair selection and annotate with some options that we discussede [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].
18:33:14 <wayne_carr> consensus may not be the right word, since implies near unaniminity, maybe will
18:33:17 <Ian> action: Ian to summarize suggestions/considerations regarding document class, title, and status info
18:33:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Summarize suggestions/considerations regarding document class, title, and status info [on Ian Jacobs - due 2012-12-06].
18:34:12 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
18:34:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-council-minutes.html Ian
18:34:12 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs public
18:34:21 <koalie> Ian: next meeting?
18:34:33 <Ian> Proposed: review deliverables by email.
18:34:35 <koalie> ... for the time being we can review deliverable by mail
18:34:49 <koalie> [adjourned]