20:54:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #indie-ui
20:54:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-indie-ui-irc
20:54:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:54:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be INDIE
20:54:59 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_Indie()5:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
20:54:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Independent User Interface Task Force Teleconference
20:55:00 <trackbot> Date: 29 May 2013
20:55:15 <janina> Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference
20:55:16 <janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka
20:55:16 <janina> agenda+ TPAC2013 https://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/
20:55:16 <janina> agenda+ Editor's Update
20:55:16 <janina> agenda+ User Module FPWD Strategy Discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2013May/0025.html
20:55:18 <janina> agenda+ User Context Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/3
20:55:21 <janina> agenda+ Events Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/2
20:55:24 <janina> agenda+ Privacy and Security: The cases for exposing AT
20:55:27 <janina> agenda+ Renaming POR: Open Discussion
20:55:29 <janina> agenda+ Scribe for our Next Teleconference (on 12 June at 21:00Z)
20:55:32 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
20:57:41 <jasonjgw> jasonjgw has joined #indie-ui
20:58:10 <Zakim> WAI_Indie()5:00PM has now started
20:58:17 <Zakim> +??P0
20:59:02 <rich> rich has joined #indie-ui
20:59:25 <Zakim> +??P1
20:59:26 <jasonjgw> zakim, +??P0 is jasonjgw
20:59:26 <Zakim> sorry, jasonjgw, I do not recognize a party named '+??P0'
20:59:39 <Zakim> +Cooper
20:59:58 <Zakim> +??P2
21:00:14 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P2 is Janina_Sajka
21:00:14 <Zakim> +Janina_Sajka; got it
21:00:18 <Zakim> +Rich_Simpson
21:00:21 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #indie-ui
21:00:48 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #indie-ui
21:01:14 <Zakim> +[Apple]
21:01:22 <jcraig> Zakim, Apple has jcraig
21:01:22 <Zakim> +jcraig; got it
21:03:02 <jcraig> scribe: jcraig
21:03:35 <jcraig> Zakim, who is on the call?
21:03:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see jasonjgw, Andy_Heath, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Rich_Simpson, [Apple]
21:03:37 <Zakim> [Apple] has jcraig
21:03:38 <jcraig> Agenda?
21:03:52 <MichaelC> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2013May/0026.html
21:03:56 <jcraig> take up item 11
21:04:12 <Zakim> +[Apple.a]
21:04:13 <MichaelC> zakim, drop item 4
21:04:13 <Zakim> agendum 4, user context properties, dropped
21:04:15 <MichaelC> drop item 5
21:04:17 <MichaelC> drop item 6
21:04:17 <hober> Zakim, Apple.a has me
21:04:18 <Zakim> +hober; got it
21:04:19 <MichaelC> drop item 7
21:04:21 <MichaelC> drop item 8
21:04:24 <MichaelC> drop item 9
21:04:26 <andy> andy has joined #indie-ui
21:04:26 <MichaelC> drop item 10
21:04:48 <jcraig> JS: TPAC, who's going? TPAC webpage needs updating still (no hotel, etc).
21:05:10 <jcraig> JS: TPAC is November 11-15 in Shenzhen China
21:05:38 <jcraig> agenda?
21:05:47 <jcraig> Zakim, next item
21:05:47 <Zakim> agendum 12. "Editor's Update" taken up [from janina]
21:06:36 <jcraig> JC: Updates from last call directional events and linear events should use same names as CSS and SVG
21:06:44 <jcraig> they do now
21:07:01 <jcraig> UIRequestEventUI
21:07:03 <jasonjgw> Comments from Rich that directional and linear events should use the same syntax as CSS and SVG were incorporated into revisions.
21:07:28 <jcraig> UIRequestEventInit
21:08:02 <jasonjgw> Questions have been raised about UI request event initializers and the need for an initialization dictionary.
21:08:38 <jcraig> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/default/src/indie-ui-events.html#UIRequestEvent
21:08:51 <jasonjgw> See section 3.1.2 of the Events draft.
21:09:57 <jasonjgw> James proposes to contact potential implementors about this issue.
21:11:20 <jcraig> Zakim, next item
21:11:20 <Zakim> agendum 13. "User Module FPWD Strategy Discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2013May/0025.html" taken up [from janina]
21:11:29 <jasonjgw> James clarifies in response to a suggestion from Michael that it isn't clear that WebIDL has been limiting so far, but SpecProd has been (issues raised).
21:12:16 <jcraig> JW: been thinking about this for a while now
21:12:40 <jcraig> JW: questions regarding User Context draft, privacy implications
21:12:41 <MichaelC> s/SpecProd has been (issues raised)/Respec has been (issues raised on specprod list)/
21:13:27 <MichaelC> q+ to say we still haven´t sorted requirements; do we want to before FPWD (ok either way but let´s examine question)
21:13:32 <jcraig> JW: Trying to get to the bottom of what issues/actions need to be addressed prior to FPWD of User Context spec
21:13:52 <janina>  q?
21:14:09 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about general outline
21:14:33 <jcraig> JW: May need to publish with notes as to which issues are controversial or incomplete; also which are prereqs to publishing
21:15:06 <jcraig> MC: Don't believe we have all the requirements yet
21:15:21 <jcraig> MC: I'm attempting to eliminate the dupe reqs
21:15:55 <jcraig> MC: Would we want to sort reqs prior to publishing FPWD or not?
21:16:34 <jcraig> MC: Could do either; pros/cons to each. Sorting first would delay draft, but also enlighten the first draft.
21:17:17 <jcraig> MC: No FPWD is complete, but would be good to publish as a complete outline of planned final document.
21:17:32 <jcraig> q?
21:17:34 <jcraig> ack m
21:17:34 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we still haven´t sorted requirements; do we want to before FPWD (ok either way but let´s examine question) and to talk about general outline
21:17:39 <MichaelC> ack me
21:18:05 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about where requirements live
21:18:27 <jcraig> JW: could simultaneously publish requirements and FPWD. Would have the benefit of drawing attention to incompleteness of requirements.
21:19:33 <janina> ack m
21:19:33 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about where requirements live
21:19:35 <jcraig> JW: other option would be to write full reqs document prior to FPWD
21:20:02 <jcraig> MC: reqs are currently are in a wiki. There was no plan to publish reqs to the TR status pages.
21:20:39 <jcraig> MC: our charter allows us to co-publish additional "supporting" documents.
21:20:51 <jcraig> JW: Some other WGs publish reqs docs
21:21:16 <jcraig> JW: just pointing out options we have.
21:21:58 <jcraig> JW: Want to use requirements to inform the spec, and vice versa.
21:23:13 <jcraig> MC: I do believe documenting requirements will help us proceed towards spec publishing; some delay due to differing views of what those requirements are.
21:23:14 <smaug> smaug has joined #indie-ui
21:23:52 <jcraig> JS: WAI coord group expressed surprise that we have not solicited requirements from outside the WG.
21:24:20 <jcraig> MC: Could appeal to public to look at the wiki; other option to publish FPWD and wait for feedback.
21:24:25 <jcraig> q+
21:24:42 <jcraig> JW: I'd like to see requirements settled before FPWD
21:25:24 <MichaelC> q+ to say requirements haven´t been difficult to define, as much as scope for which requirements make v.1
21:25:27 <jcraig> JW: Or at least defined enough to have the spec refer back to the wiki.
21:26:01 <jcraig> JW: I don't think all controversies have to be worked out prior to publishing
21:26:04 <jcraig> ack me
21:27:20 <MichaelC> q+ to say incomplete doesn´t have to block FPWD; an incomplete privacy section can be part of appeal for input
21:27:55 <andy> q+
21:28:15 <MichaelC> action-42?
21:28:15 <trackbot> ACTION-42 -- Michael Cooper to consolidate use cases -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN
21:28:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/42
21:28:17 <MichaelC> action-41?
21:28:17 <trackbot> ACTION-41 -- Michael Cooper to create IndieUI Roadmap for both spec: which feature sets should go into 1.0 versions. -- due 2013-03-02 -- OPEN
21:28:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/41
21:28:48 <andy> q-
21:28:49 <jcraig> JW: group action to solidify use cases?
21:29:15 <jcraig> MC: may need to prompt individuals instead of by group
21:29:28 <MichaelC> ack me
21:29:28 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say requirements haven´t been difficult to define, as much as scope for which requirements make v.1 and to say incomplete doesn´t have to block FPWD; an
21:29:29 <jcraig> ack m
21:29:32 <Zakim> ... incomplete privacy section can be part of appeal for input
21:29:47 <andy> q+
21:31:02 <jcraig> MC: one of the hard issues is to decide not just what should go into each version of the draft; some features won't make it into version 1.0
21:31:28 <jcraig> MC: legitimate to publish FPWD with privacy section listed as TBD
21:31:40 <jcraig> ack andy
21:32:47 <jcraig> AH: agree with Michael that we need to solidify and agree on requirements
21:33:09 <andy> q+
21:33:29 <jcraig> JS: Wondering recently what the core requirements should be; but with extensibility
21:33:32 <jcraig> q+
21:33:49 <jcraig> q-
21:33:52 <jcraig> q+
21:34:02 <MichaelC> ack and
21:34:23 <jcraig> JS: ACRONYM? has a very specific need that most clients would not need
21:35:24 <jcraig> AH: working on a crosswalk? of multiple groups needs and requirements: GPII, Schema.org
21:35:31 <jcraig> ack a
21:35:54 <janina> ack jas
21:36:15 <jcraig> JW: existing precedent for core reqs and modules as a structure
21:36:40 <jcraig> JW: also mechanism is not defining the vocabulary
21:37:04 <MichaelC> q+ to say the question of core / modules or syntax / vocabularies could be something we ask for input on in the FPWD
21:37:32 <andy> q+
21:37:43 <jcraig> JW: in order to resolve the scope, it may be to be speced as 1.0, 2.0, or to sub-modularize the spec
21:38:24 <jcraig> JW: Step 1: collect all requirements in one place, and Step 2: separate the scope after we document the entire list
21:38:26 <jcraig> q?
21:38:31 <jcraig> ack me
21:39:02 <jcraig> s/ACRONYM?/GPII/
21:40:39 <jasonjgw> James notes that there is already some provision for extensibility but there are disagreements about what should be included in core. The general core/extension approach seems non-controversial as is the technical mechanism (key/value pairs discussion).
21:41:55 <jasonjgw> He suggests gathering all requirements HHHHe suggests HHHHe concurs with the idea of gathering all potential requirements first and then dividing them into levels of importance or otherwise classifying in order to resolve the scope question.
21:42:28 <Zakim> -Janina_Sajka
21:42:41 <MichaelC> ack me
21:42:41 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say the question of core / modules or syntax / vocabularies could be something we ask for input on in the FPWD
21:42:43 <MichaelC> ack andy
21:42:55 <jcraig> MC: we could ask the public some questions about core needs versus extensible taxonomies; whether they think these will delay implementations
21:43:05 <andy> q-
21:43:39 <jcraig> AH: agree with prior comments; controversial bits are just about what makes it into the core vocabulary
21:43:47 <jcraig> q?
21:44:21 <jcraig> q+
21:44:38 <jcraig> MC: action items? email to ist? volunteers?
21:44:41 <MichaelC> ack jason
21:44:44 <jcraig> s/ist/list/
21:45:06 <andy> q+
21:45:39 <jcraig> JW: solicit requirements, consolidate complete list, delete duplicates and overlap, and verify cleanliness of data
21:46:12 <jcraig> JC: I nominate Jason
21:46:43 <MichaelC> ack jc
21:48:05 <MichaelC> JW: willing to send email to list and help with regularizing the requirements that are submitted
21:48:08 <MichaelC> after a reasonable time frame
21:48:19 <MichaelC> and can help back-track to use cases
21:48:29 <MichaelC> JC: some stuff already represented in spec
21:49:03 <MichaelC> and the existing proposals for requirements
21:49:25 <MichaelC> though some refactoring may be needed
21:49:47 <jcraig> ACTION: Jason to email group to resoliciting uses cases for User Context requirements;
21:49:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Email group to resoliciting uses cases for User Context requirements; [on Jason White - due 2013-06-05].
21:49:48 <MichaelC> e.g., ¨simplified¨ needs more precise definition
21:50:21 <jcraig> q?
21:50:25 <jcraig> ack andy
21:50:42 <jcraig> q+
21:50:57 <jcraig> AH: why ask the community about requirements yet
21:51:29 <Zakim> -Rich_Simpson
21:52:07 <MichaelC> ack j
21:52:17 <jcraig> AH: be sure not to disregard proposals in this initial gathering phase; we can determine order later
21:52:21 <andy> q+
21:52:22 <jcraig> ack me
21:54:01 <MichaelC> q+ to say we can ask for requirements of anybody whom we like, or not do so; but in a FPWD anybody who wants to comment may, and calling out requirements as a reviewable item is reasoanble to expect
21:54:28 <MichaelC> ack a
21:54:59 <MichaelC> q+ to say we operate in public and are answerable to the public
21:55:26 <MichaelC> q+ to talk briefly about mechanisms for handling public input
21:55:33 <andy> q+
21:55:37 <jcraig> JC: re: external comments, need to approach this carefully; could result in FUD from non-technical members of the community that could misunderstand some of the reasons for the need for User Context
21:55:48 <MichaelC> ack ja
21:56:50 <MichaelC> ack me
21:56:50 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we can ask for requirements of anybody whom we like, or not do so; but in a FPWD anybody who wants to comment may, and calling out requirements as a
21:56:53 <Zakim> ... reviewable item is reasoanble to expect and to say we operate in public and are answerable to the public and to talk briefly about mechanisms for handling public input
21:56:55 <jcraig> JW: would be fine with having the FPWD point to list of requirements. That should be enough; don't need to make specific requests outside the technical spec reviewers.
21:57:33 <jcraig> q?
21:58:48 <jcraig> MC: can triage the feedback and those comments as we see fit.
21:59:09 <MichaelC> ack and
21:59:56 <jcraig> MC: Need to behave in a manner befitting that, but don't need to let the world's comments drag us down and prevent progress.
22:00:40 <jcraig> AH: I can help with the reqs gathering and email that is Jason's initial action item
22:00:51 <MichaelC> ack ja
22:00:53 <Zakim> -[Apple.a]
22:01:15 <jcraig> MC: additional action items will be needed after Jason's is complete
22:01:59 <jcraig> ACTION-54?
22:01:59 <trackbot> ACTION-54 -- Jason White to email group to resoliciting uses cases for User Context requirements; -- due 2013-06-05 -- OPEN
22:01:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/54
22:03:16 <jcraig> rrsagent, make minutes
22:03:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-indie-ui-minutes.html jcraig
22:05:26 <andy> q+
22:07:16 <Zakim> -[Apple]
22:07:19 <jcraig> jcraig has left #indie-ui
22:07:47 <MichaelC> ack and
22:08:59 <Zakim> -jasonjgw
22:09:05 <Zakim> -Andy_Heath
22:09:07 <Zakim> -Cooper
22:09:07 <Zakim> WAI_Indie()5:00PM has ended
22:09:07 <Zakim> Attendees were Cooper, jasonjgw, Janina_Sajka, Rich_Simpson, Andy_Heath, jcraig, [Apple], hober
22:09:14 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
22:09:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-indie-ui-minutes.html MichaelC
22:10:13 <MichaelC> rrsagent, bye
22:10:13 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-indie-ui-actions.rdf :
22:10:13 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jason to email group to resoliciting uses cases for User Context requirements; [1]
22:10:13 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-indie-ui-irc#T21-49-47
22:10:15 <MichaelC> zakim, bye
22:10:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #indie-ui